PREAMBLE (lewis)

There will come a day, perhaps sooner than later, when every dream will be known by its category, and every significant dream, (those that yield "practical" knowledge), will be perfectly understood. In this future, dream analysis, as a scientifically verifiable body of knowledge, will have acquired a status comparable to science, and will be regarded as one of the principle sources of self knowledge.

What is remarkable and yet remarkably overlooked is that because we all dream, we are already in possession of this knowledge. But the laws which would make this knowledge explicitly known to us have not yet been uncovered, much like the motion of the planets was observed before Newton, but without his laws, the mere fact of their motion held no "practical" significance. The pseudo-science of dream analysis is stuck in a pre-Newtonian universe. If dream analysis is to advance towards a "practical" goal, if it is to move beyond its merely speculative sphere of activity, it must take a bold step backwards and finally begin to establish and secure its axioms and principles (and pre-suppositions): the indispensable building blocks of knowledge.

The following paper, provisional in its scope, is an invitation to the dream establishment to explore how this enormous but critical (phenomenological, "pre-hermeneutical") task might be approached.
The fundamental question that must be asked is: what can we say for certain, if anything, about dreams?

TO SUBJECT DREAM ANALYSIS TO SCIENTIFIC SCRUTINY

IF DREAM analysis has been given short shrift as a legitimate psycho-analytical tool, it is because it hasn't been able to establish a scientific foundation for itself. For the most part, it continues to seek a phantom unifying principle, where commonalities are forged into theories that knit together a broad category of dreams. However, while models and theories abound, their predictive value collapses in the face of individual experience.

So if we begin with the presupposition that every dream, like every snowflake, has its unique structure and meaning, we can turn our attention away from a grand unifying principle, and instead, begin to ask more the primordial questions of dreams.

Which means before we begin to speak about dreams, it is necessary to demonstrate the biological basis (necessity) of dreaming; and to show that dreams are as identifiably and singularly purposeful to man's psychological life as, for example, essential proteins are to existence.

As far as we claim to know anything about dreams, the still unanswered question remain: why do we dream, to what ultimate purpose? What is the meaning of dreams, where the meaning or essence is the same for each and every dream, much like a house can mean a thousand things to a thousand dwellers, but prior to individual meaning, it is first and foremost always a shelter. The status and future of dream analysis as investigative tool hang on these questions.

We are the only species that can willfully delude ourselves. I can convince myself that my neighbor likes me when he really doesn't; that my understanding of Hegel is adequate enough to effectively teach it when it isn't; that I approve of my daughter's choice for a husband when I don't etc. In each case there are incontrovertible facts which should lead me to conclude that (1) my neighbor doesn't like me (2) that I don't approve of my daughter's marriage (3) that my understanding of Hegel is inadequate etc. But in each case the facts have been undermined or corrupted by a self-serving interpretation whose first effect is to "apparently" render less stressful what would otherwise be a stress inducing situation. It's much easier to convince myself that my neighbor likes me than have to deal with the possibility that he doesn't, why doesn't he, did I inadvertently insult him, embarrass his wife. what will I say if he confronts me, etc. It's again easier to convince myself that I have an adequate understanding of Hegel, rather than have to again struggle with his recalcitrant material. If I'm honest with myself concerning my daughter's marriage to a man I disapprove, I risk losing her affection, her respect and the father-daughter contact which is very important to me. So there are all sorts of good and practical and immediate reasons for deluding myself.

If part of being a successful organism means being able to deal with stress, it's natural to exercise that uniquely human option OF consciously CHOOSING to self-delude, if the result is to postpone or eliminate a potentially stressful situation. But because we also know that it is always in an organism`s best interest to perceive reality, so as to be able to respond (survive) to it as it is (and not what we wish it to be), we shouldn't be surprised that over the course of animal and human evolution the selection process has favored those species who have been best able to register and process reality. So on the one hand, we are the species that has been programmed to register and respond to reality, while at the same time we are the species that can choose to delude itself. Which begs the question: how are these competing motivations reconciled?

Before the emergence of intelligence (or self-consciousness), the sensible world made its home in what is now referred to as the subconscious (or unconscious). The organism, in a manner consistent with its DNA, would register and process information coming from outside itself, and respond in a pre-determined fashion. It is only in man's recent history that that mind could interpret, manipulate or distort the information initially received through the senses. So if the accurate reception of reality has always been the first perogative of the subconscious, it makes sense that dreaming, which we will designate as the involuntary, biological response to the conscious mind's capacity for self-delusion, should occur there. Dreaming need not occur in the conscious because as part of its basic constitution, it already has in place a correcting mechanism -- reason -- which when exercised, obviates the need to dream. It's only when reason fails to perform, the species response in each and every case is to dream. For example, if I come to conscious terms with my inadequate understanding of Hegel I will not have to dream it; but if I reject or distort that truth, I must dream.

With the advent of consciousness, or self-consciousness, the possibility arises that there can be an inadequate correspondence between what our senses receive and the interpretation of what is received. Natural selection has seen to it that this perception gap is addressed when the organism is asleep; which is the necessary condition for the corrective mechanism to be activated and for dreaming to occur. And while the lower brain (the subconscious) seems to have the last word; that word, for the most part, remains inarticulate, and rarely reaches the consciousness of the person who had the dream. From this, we must conclude that we apparently need not remember our dreams, much less be able to interpret them. And yet it seems that it is essential to dream when we have consciously distorted or misinterpreted what our senses have received.

In other words, if the conscious mind can be happy in self-delusion, the subconscious can never be; it can never accept the distortions from above, and yet it cannot pre-empt the distorting process: it can only respond to it (through the mechanism of dreaming). Which is to say, natural selection has favored the kind of intelligent life we are, in whom this correcting mechanism (dreaming) is a distinguishing characteristic, but which does not distinguish itself in respect to final effects. Whether we would be a better or more improved species if we were more conscious of our dreams is another question. Our starting point must be that in the absence of deliberate (professional) intervention, dreams play only a small role in the decisions which determine the outcome of individual existence.
Therefore, excepting dreams which anticipate urgent bodily functions (diarrhea etc.), I propose that all (significant) dreams, without exception, oblige the dreamer to subconsciously come to terms with truths or facts the conscious mind has distorted or misinterpreted. But in the dream, the dreamer does not come to actual terms with a fact or truth. My dream of Hegel may have nothing to do with Hegel. But in the dream, which may take place in a very unrecognizable, or unworldly setting, I will acknowledge that I have an inadequate understanding of something which is analogous to my actual situation. In other words, for the health and well-being of the organism which I am, the dream will create those optimal conditions which will allow me to come to subconscious terms with a vital truth that corresponds to the truth I am avoiding about Hegel in my waking state.

Why must dreams always be symbolic or disguised? If I am unwilling to come to terms with a particular truth during my waking, I will certainly not come to terms with it during sleep if the setting of the dream is exactly the same as in reality. Therefor, the dream must use symbols and/or unfamiliar settings/dynamics, to cajole the dreamer into entering a situation which tricks him into acknowledging a truth he has consciously avoided or distorted during his waking.

What is the utility of dreams if we apparently forget most of them, and those we remember we are unable to interpret? How can I act upon a dream if I don't remember it?

If, for example, on an esteem scale, my boss' esteem for me is 5 out of 10 while I believe it to be 7 out of 10, it's hardly necessary that I remember the dream that obliges me to acknowledge the disparity. However, if the situation is life threatening, or carries potentially significant consequences, the content and frequency of the dream will adjust accordingly. For example, if I continue to deny that my understanding of Hegel is inadequate, and refuse to recognize the very real possibility that I will be dismissed from the department, the occasional dream on the subject may become a recurring dream. Thus increasing the likelihood that I will become conscious of it. Even at this point I may not understand the dream, but I will have registered the mood of it (the mood of inadequate understanding of something), and this might be enough to make me act. If this fails to register, the recurring dream may become a nightmare, from which I will awake, profoundly disturbed, with the dream fresh in my conscious mind. At that point, I will probably, at a minimum, be motivated to question the dream. If the dream contains even a passing reference to Hegel, this might be enough to finally encourage me to acknowledge the consequences of not having an adequate understanding of Hegel.

The nightmare is perhaps the most noteworthy of dreams because its design (purpose) is such that, as a response, it deliberately affects the conscious, awoken mind; it's the tight-rope the dreamer walks between the subconscious and conscious. Its becomes an appropriate (and arguably necessary) response when the organism determines that its (upper mind) capacity for self-delusion is life-threatening, and/or carries significant negative consequences. Therefore, children, in whom fantasy and unreality have been nurtured since birth, should experience more nightmares than adults -- as a measure of their unhealthy reluctance to relinquish their fantasy life. If this can be scientifically verified, it follows that children raised in primitive cultures (or raised more realistically) should be less prone to nightmares than Disneyland's children? Or an adult who is very realistic about himself should dream less (perhaps require less sleep) than someone who is unrealistic about himself? {Buddhism maintains that the enlightened Buddha doesn't dream? Because he has rid himself of all his delusions?} The challenge is to submit what is now
mere theory (with perhaps some predictive value) to the rigors of science.

Dreams represent an extremely rich, but untapped natural resource, much like the sun's energy. In light of increasing demographic pressures and dwindling natural resources, inter-human relations are becoming more and more strained as we look to the next century. Dreams, as a source of knowledge, might be used to relieve some of these pressure points; but this is to put the cart before the horse. If dream analysis is to have any epistemological credibility, its first priority must be to establish a sound scientific foundation for itself. (Not unlike what Kant tried to do for knowledge).
THE END

Robert Lewis
robertl@core-net.com

Discussion by Robert Lewis and Richard Wilkerson

Normal text = Richard Wilkerson
Normal text (RCW2) = Richard Wilkerson - second comments
Normal text with >> or << = Quotes of Lewis' Text
CAPITAL TEXT = Robert Lewis's Replies

(Richard): Rob, its quite true that there is still a gap in the scientific study of meaning. Science has little to say about meaning, and rather relies on probabilities of appearance. One can't start with empirical investigation and end up with statements about meaning without leaping some huge gaps.

(Rob) I AGREE. BUT IN RESPECT TO DREAM ANALYSIS, WE CAN GET A LOT CLOSER TO THE MEANING OF A DREAM IF WE UNDERSTAND, AS FACT, THE ULTIMATE PURPOSE OF DREAMING, WHERE EVERY PRACTICAL DREAM IS DREAMT FOR THE SAME REASON. THIS IS WHAT I'M AIMING AT. AS FOR THE MEANING OF INDIVIDUAL DREAMS, THAT, I SUSPECT, WILL FALL INTO PLACE, ONCE THE MAJOR PRINCIPLES HAVE BEEN UNCOVERED. AM I TOO OPTIMISTIC FOR MY OWN GOOD?

(RCW2): Well, I'll say more about this later, but I do think that by pursuing a specific view of dream-meaning that powerful tools can result. As to whether *other* theories of dream meaning would have to step aside forever, well, that may be expecting too much from a theory.

(Text Quote) >IF DREAM analysis has been given short shrift as a legitimate psycho-analytical >tool, it is because it hasn't been able to establish a scientific foundation for itself.

(Richard): I quite agree that dream analysis has not gone very far in establishing a scientific foundation for itself. I don't agree that the short shrift as a legitimate psycho-analytic tool is due to this. Freud complained near the end of his life that no one in psychoanalysis had advanced his original dream theories. This complaint, to my understanding, had to do with the development of transference, which the (Freudian) psychoanalysts as a group preferred to focus on and use as the major tool.
Transference has not gone any farther than dreams in getting itself established scientifically. As a matter of fact, psychoanalysis has not gone very far in getting itself scientifically established. Most of the original pseudo-physics Freud used as a model (or I should say, fin-de-sicle science) have been dropped.

Now, perhaps you are using "psycho-analytic" in a more general way?

DEFINITELY IN A GENERAL WAY.

Here, I agree with you again, though again, the paths of science and hermeneutics have always had gaps.

HERMENEUTICS DEALS WITH EVERYTHING BUT SCIENTIFIC FACT.

(RCW2): This used to be so, but now that hermeneutics has given birth to a variety of interpretive approaches, even science comes under its scrutiny.

(Richard 1) Jung actually began his career very empirically, using gsr polygraphs to investigate complexes. But the transition of complex into dream was never grounded scientifically.

> For the most part, it continues to seek a phantom unifying principle, where commonalities are >forged into theories that knit together a broad category of dreams. However, while models and >theories abound, their predictive value collapses in the face of individual experience.

Yes, and if you need an early reference on the historical seeking of unity, I believe it was Aristotle who said to be a good dream interpreter, one had to be good with likenesses. James Hillman often quotes him. Dreamwork often seems to follow theosophy and magic in the over-use of correspondence and likeness as a guiding trope. I think this is due to our loss of dream telling on a daily basis and the need to find the dream related to something we know. In my opinion its gone way too far and we would profit from exploring the differences rather than all the similarities.

EXACTLY. THE SAME DREAM CAN MEAN TWO DIFFERENT THINGS TO TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE IN UNLIKE SITUATIONS. THE SAME DREAM DREAMT IN THE MORNING MIGHT MEAN SOMETHING ELSE LATER IN THE DAY. YES. FORGET ABOUT PATTERN RECOGNITION (I.E. SHORT CUTS).

> So if we begin with the presupposition that every dream, like every snowflake, has its unique structure and meaning, we can turn our attention away from a grand unifying principle, and instead, begin to ask more the primordial questions of dreams.

Great. This movement is long overdue. Careful with metaphors of "primordial" if you are moving away from grand narratives.

> Which means before we begin to speak about dreams, it is >necessary to >demonstrate the biological basis (necessity) of >dreaming; and to show >that dreams are as identifiably and >singularly purposeful to man's psychological life as, for example, essential proteins are to existence.

I have to agree with bob here.(Bob Krumhansl's comment about the multiple layers of meaning in a dream. ) Very few things biologically serve only one function, including proteins. The current science on dreaming (function vs meaning now) is that during fetal development dreaming serves in the neuro- development and hardwiring of the brain, where as later, in this capacity, it functions to softwire. Also, as the mammalian brain needs to stay warmer than the reptilian brain, something needs to keep it occasionally active during the sleep periods without actually waking the mammal up.

I'M CERTAINLY NOT IN A POSITION TO ARGUE THIS. I'LL JUST SAY THAT, ALL THE ABOVE BEING TRUE, THERE IS NONETHELESS, A PRACTICAL (NON BIOLOGICAL) FUNCTION TO DREAMS, THE UNDERSTANDING OF WHICH CAN RESULT IN A POSITIVE EFFECT ON OUR LIVES AS WE LIVE THEM DAY TO DAY. WHAT YOU MENTION ABOVE WILL HAPPEN REGARDLESS, AND THERE IS NO NEED TO BE CONSCIOUS OF IT. AS FOR COMPENSATORY DREAMS, THAT'S ANOTHER MUCH MORE SERIOUS MATTER. MORE ON THIS LATER. FOR ALL I KNOW, THERE IS A DREAM TRIGGER THAT TRIGGERS A DREAM, WHETHER WE NEED TO DREAM OR NOT, MUCH LIKE OUR STOMACH PRODUCES DIGESTIVE ENZYMES WHETHER WE HAVE EATEN OR NOT. THE KEY IS TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN SIGNIFICANT DREAMS PURPOSEFULL) AND INSIGNIFICANT - THOSE DREAMT REFLEXIVELY (AUTONOMOUSLY).

Another function of dreams. There are many others, biologically speaking. See
++Moffitt, A., Kramer, M., Hoffmann, R. (Eds.). (1993). The Function of Dreaming. NY: State University of New York Press.
++Hunt, Harry T.(1989). The Multiplicity of Dreams: Memory, Imagination and Consciousness. New Haven: Yale University Press.
++Ellman, Steven J. & Antrobus, John S. (Eds). (1991). The Mind in Sleep: Psychology and Psychophysiology. 2nd editon. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

I still feel if you open this up to multiple functions, and are clear about the difference between the biological and psychological functions, the thrust of what you are saying will hold, and actually be strengthened by the multiple uses of dreaming.

>> As far as we claim to know anything about dreams, the >still unanswered question remain: why do we dream, to what >ultimate purpose? What is the meaning of dreams, where the >meaning or essence is the same for each and every dream, much >like a house can mean a thousand things to a thousand dwellers, >but prior to individual meaning, it is first and foremost >always a shelter. The status and future of dream analysis as >investigative tool hang on these questions.

Again, I would drop the grand narratives, (ultimate purpose, essence, foremost meaning) or separate these out as the spiritual quest from your empirical and psychological quest. A shelter for some is a prison for others. the theory of biological adaptation is not the only view in life.

EXACTLY. AGAIN, RE. PRISON ANALOGY, IDENTICAL DREAMS CAN HAVE UNIDENTICAL MEANINGS.

I hear in your text a kind of phenomenological quest as well which could be developed. Husserl, who said, "to the things themselves" was interested in an investigation of the world and the perceiver of the world in a way that would get to that part of things one might call essential. What, he asks, can be removed from that book over there in such a way that it is still essentially what it is? I hear in your questions a similar theme.

>>>>> We are the only species that can willfully delude ourselves. I can convince myself..=//= . (much text cut - see full text above) =//= >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Rob, Carl Jung would agree with you in your argument and extends in a little. He felt that nature abhors a vacuum and when the ego goes too far from its biological destiny, an unconscious compensation occurs, which can be seen in the dream. Your theory is slightly different in that you hold that the unconscious has the truth and the dream attempts to bridge or mend this gap.

AT THIS STAGE, RICHARD, THIS IS THE KEY TO WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY AND PROVE. EVEN IF I'M WRONG, I BELIEVE THERE IS A SINGLE PURPOSE (THAT REMAINS TO BE UNCOVERED) TO SIGNIFICANT DREAMING, AS UNVARIABLE AS A LAW OF PHYSICS. EVEN IF IT DOESN'T EXIST OR IS NEVER FOUND, THIS SHOULD BE THE QUEST.

There are some assumptions here you will have to live with that I would be uncomfortable with. One is that the world is *in* the unconscious and that the unconscious contains the truth. I would rather say that truths often come through the unconscious. It would be a highly spiritualized position to say that the unconscious is the keeper of capital R Reality.

THE SENSES KNOW THE TRUTH. IT'S OUR INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THE SENSES HAVE REGISTERED IS WHERE THE PROBLEM LIES.
IF OUR INTERPRETATION IS CORRECT, THE TRUTH RESIDES IN THE CONSCIOUS. IF INCORRECT, WE MUST DREAM THE TRUTH - UNCONSCIOUSLY - AND DEPENDING ON A HOST OF FACTORS THIS TRUTH MAY NEVER REACH THE CONSCIOUS.

In Jung's system, the conscious and the unconscious cooperate to fill in the gap that exists between the concrete truth and the ideal truth. Besides truth and lies, there is a whole range of being.

I AGREE RICHARD, AND MUST CAUTION MYSELF RE. THE EXCESSIVE USE OF POLARITIES - EASY TO WORK WITH BUT NOT TRUE TO MANY LIFE SITUATIONS.

Some people choose self sacrifice, lying to themselves and others about the truth not to feel better but for a larger reality. In this sense, its not a lie, but a deliberate act of non-adaptation.

IF THIS IS THE CASE, THEN THE PERSON WILL DREAM THE TRUTH, THAT, FOR EX. HE REALLY ISN'T SACRIFICING FOR A LARGER REALITY, BUT HIS WIFE HAS JUST LEFT HIM AND HE IS SUBCONSCIOUSLY SUICIDAL - OR WHATEVER. TO REPEAT: IF IT IS ALWAYS IN OUR INTEREST TO KNOW REALITY FOR WHAT IT IS, THE DREAM WILL COME TO THE RESCUE. THE DREAM IS ALWAYS WORKING IN THE INTEREST OF SURVIVAL. NOW OF COURSE THERE ARE EXAMPLES WHERE KNOWING THE TRUTH -- THAT MY WIFE IS HAVING AN AFFAIR WITH MY BEST FRIEND - MIGHT CAUSE CONSIDERABLE PAIN, WHERE NOT KNOWING MIGHT BE BETTER. BUT EXAMPLES LIKE THIS WOULD BE THE EXCEPTION, AND EVEN WITHIN THAT GROUP, LONG TERM RESULTS MIGHT SHOW THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER TO KNOW RIGHT AWAY.

Concrete reality is only one reality. By the way, it has never been scientifically verified that survival is better than not surviving.

TRUE, BUT FOR THE SAKE OF . . . WE MUST PRESUPPOSE IT.

This is an assumption that is untested and probably untestable. I think it would be productive & powerful tool to develop the notion of dreams as compensation for self-deceit. But to get to an empirical basis for this, I think you might want to re-work your notion of the unconscious.

COULD YOU ELABORATE ON THIS.

I guess I get hung up on this idea of the subconscious truth in general. You are using it in a specific way which is more understandable. If you say that one's unconscious "knows" the truth, what you are getting at(I think) is that it knows the places where we have been deceiving ourselves, and if this is not going to be adaptive, it will reveal them in a dream.

So there is a mix here of the unconscious knowing both where we have deceived ourselves and what is adaptive (for the individual, I assume - or for the group?) In this sense, this begins to look like what is generally called intuition - a semi-conscious grasping of the picture as a whole. This could be developed to be quite useful, dreams as intuitive grasps of reality.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>Whether we would be a better or more improved species >if we were more conscious of our dreams is another question. Our starting >point must be that in the absence of deliberate (professional) >intervention, dreams play only a small role in the decisions which >determine the outcome of individual existence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Why is it we can't assume that dreams are not just like other body parts, they are essential, they function pretty well without intervention and yet can be improved with the consciously applied techniques (proper nutrients and diet, exercise, ect) ?

I'M NOT SUGGESTING WE INTERFERE WITH DREAMING PROPER, BUT DREAM ANALYSIS, LIKE A MUSCLE THAT WORKS WELL, CAN BE MADE TO WORK BETTER WITH INTERVENTION AND TECHNIQUE. PHILOSOPHICAL OBSERVATION; I BELIEVE THAT SELF AWARENESS IS SO UNDERDEVELOPED SO AS TO BE PATHOLOGICAL IN MANY INSTANCES, THAT DREAM ANALYSIS, IN PARTICULAR, COULD REVOLUTIONIZE THE WAY WE KNOW AND THINK ABOUT OURSELVES. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Me too.

> Therefore, excepting dreams which anticipate urgent bodily functions (diarrhea etc.), I
>propose that all (significant) dreams, without exception, oblige the dreamer to subconsciously >come to terms with truths or facts the conscious mind has distorted or misinterpreted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Slightly unclear here. If we have to come to terms in the realm that already knows the truth (didn't you say the unconscious has this reality factor? ) then is the dreamer really coming to terms?

OBLIGE, IN THE SENSE THAT WE HAVE TO COME TO TERMS WITH THE TRUTH SOMEWHERE - IN THIS CASE, THE SUBCONSCIOUS IF WE ARE GUILTY OF CONSCIOUSLY DISTORTING THE TRUTH. AT A MINIMUM, THE DREAMER, ONCE HAVING DREAMT, COMES TO SUBCONSCIOUS TERMS WITH THE TRUTH.

But I get your drift. Its a little limited for me to say that *all* significance must be in the separation of truth and falseness, and that our survival depends on this.

I AGREE. THIS IS OF COURSE TOO BLACK AND WHITE, BUT AT THIS EARLY POINT, I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SOME BASIC POINTS - TO BE REFINED MUCH LATER, IF I BECOME CONVINCED THIS IS WORTH PURSUING.

This is one of many significant processes that I involve myself with. Maybe I can accept this as a noble and wonderful path?

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>But in the dream, the dreamer does not come to actual terms with a fact or truth.=//= test cut here see above =//=
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

It might be easier to say the unconscious has many if not all of our views, be they distorted or not, and this is what the dream plays with.

I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO GROUND TO ARGUE WITH THIS, BUT I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT DISTORTION IS ANATHEMA TO THE UNCONSCIOUS, THAT FOR THE MOST PART IT SIMPLY RECORDS OR REGISTERS WHAT THE SENSES HAVE RECEIVED.

This is more the esoteric tradition's viewpoint, that ego consciousness is the distorter of truth while the unconscious hold the clear picture. I like to think we are cooperating with one another.

IF I TRULY BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE HONORABLE INTENTIONS TOWARD ME, BUT IN FACT, BECAUSE YOU KNOW OTHERWISE, THAT YOU PLAN TO DO ME HARM, I WILL NOT HAVE TO DREAM BECAUSE I WILL HAVE DISTORTED NOTHING. DREAMS CANNOT SAVE US FROM THE CONTINGENCIES OF LIFE, OR FROM THE EVIL IN MEN'S HEARTS. THEY CAN ONLY SAVE US FROM OURSELVES. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> Why must dreams always be symbolic or disguised?

Right! Both symbol and disguise are ways of looking at the dream, not necessarily something the dream practices.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>If I
am unwilling to come to terms with a particular truth during my waking, I will certainly not come to terms with it during sleep if the setting of the dream is exactly the same as in reality. Therefore, the dream must use symbols and/or unfamiliar settings/dynamics, to cajole the dreamer into entering a situation which tricks him into acknowledging a truth he has consciously avoided or distorted during his waking.

THIS WOULD BE ONE OF THE LETIMOTIFS OF THE THOUGHT I'M TRYING TO DEVELOP
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
This is an interesting take. You could back this up with the dream content analysis work of Calvin Hall and Bob Domhoff that shows that we rarely dream of work, though we spend oodles of time there.

BUT I'LL BET WE DREAM A LOT ABOUT OUR INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS THAT TAKE PLACE AT WORK, AS A RESULT OF DELIBERATE SELF-DECEPTION ABOUT OUR TRUE FEELINGS ABOUT THOSE WHO WORK ABOVE US AND BELOW US.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> What is the utility of dreams if we apparently forget most of them, and those we remember we are unable to interpret? How can I act upon a dream if I don't remember it? If, for example, on an esteem scale, my boss' esteem for me is 5 out of 10 while I believe it to be 7 out of 10, it's hardly necessary that I remember the dream that obliges me to acknowledge the disparity. However, if the situation is life threatening, or carries potentially significant consequences, the content and frequency of the dream will adjust accordingly. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Here is something you could test to find significance of occurrence.

ESPECIALLY FOR DISTURBING DREAMS.

>For example, if I continue to deny that my understanding of Hegel is inadequate, and refuse to >recognize the very real possibility that I will be dismissed from the department, the occasional dream on the subject may become a recurring dream. Thus increasing the likelihood that I will become conscious of it.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Again, I would not oppose truth and falseness, but rather that the deluded Hegel teacher holds various viewpoints, some of which the ego responds to and recognizes, others which are not well assimilated. Whether *any* of these views correspond to reality is another issue that in the end will be unresolved. The "fact" of the teacher not knowing Hegel very well is not a fact at all. You may feel he doesn't know Hegel, the students may feel he doesn't know Hegel, the administration may feel he doesn't know Hegel and Hegel may be rolling over in his grave.

THIS IS AN EXCELLENT POINT. THE STUDENTS MAY FEEL HE KNOWS HEGEL, BUT IF HE DOESN'T, BUT CONVINCES HIMSELF THAT HE DOES, HE WILL DREAM. HOWEVER, IF HE NEEDS TO KNOW HEGEL ONLY ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY TEACH IT, AND HE KNOWS HE KNOWS ENOUGH TO TEACH IT, THEN HE WON'T DREAM. THIS EXAMPLE ILLUSTRATES HOW RELATIVE ARE DREAMS. THE SAME KNOWLEDGE OF HEGEL APPLIED TO DIFFERENT SITUATIONS WILL RESULT IN DIFFERENT DREAMS, OR NO DREAMS AT ALL. THIS POINT AGAIN DEMONSTRATES (FOR ME AT LEAST) THAT WE MUST RID OURSEVLES OF THE NOTION THAT PATTERNS CAN BE FOUND IN DREAMS. EVERY DREAM IS UNIQUE AND IS THE RESULT OF A VERY VERY PARTICULARIZED PERSONAL SITUATION.

AS AN ASIDE, I'M NOT AT ALL IMPRESSED WITH THE ANALYSES THAT ACCOMPANY DREAMS THAT ARE POSTED IN THE VARIOUS DREAM
REPOSITORIES ON THE NET. NOT AT ALL.

FOR EXAMPLE, DREAM # 970730 WRITHING WOMEN. IF, AS I CLAIM, WE DREAM FOR OURSELVES IN ORDER TO PROVIDE(UNDISTORTED) INFORMATION FOR OURSELVES, THE WOMAN HAVING THIS DREAM PROBABLY, THANKS TO MEDIA OR WHATEVER, BELIEVES THAT OBTAINING A CERTAIN APPEARANCE WILL MAKE HER HAPPY, THAT THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE THIS LOOK, OR WHATEVER, AS PRESENTED ON TV OR WHEREVER, ARE HAPPY. THE DREAM IS TELLING HER THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT HAPPY, OR BEAUTIFUL, OR WHATEVER. IN THE BROADEST TERMS, IT SEEMS THAT THE DREAM IS CORRECTING A FALSE SET OF VALUES SHE IS ASPIRING TO.

But what is the ~measure~ that he doesn't know Hegel? Its a conventional or operational reality, not an essential truth.

EXACTLY. THIS IS VERY INSIGHTFUL. AND I BELIEVE THAT DREAM ANALYSIS WILL RECOGNIZE THESE SUBTLETIES, WHICH INCLUDE OUR DISTORTIONS. AS LONG AS WE BELIEVE A PARTICULAR STANDARD TO BE CORRECT, OR MEANINGFUL, OR SIGNIFICANT, OR VALID, THERE WILL BE NO NEED TO DREAM. IT'S WHEN WE DECEIVE OURSELVES VIS A VIS OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE STANDARD. IF THE STANDARD CHANGES, AND WE DELIBERATELY CLING TO THE NOW INVALID ONE, THEN WE WILL DREAM.

What if he sticks to his guns, writes a radical book on Hegel and becomes the interpreter of Hegel for a whole new generation? What will the administration that fired him say then? They can only say he didn't know Hegel according to a particular standard, some kind of consensus reality. What the dreamer would try to put together (in your theory with modifications) would not be truth and false but two (or more) viewpoints that are at odds at the moment. The dreamer in this sense is relived from having the burden of Truth and False, and rather situated between various truths or views that he may or may not reconcile to his advantage (advantage being another assumed meaning structure).

I GUESS I DIAGREE WITH YOU HERE, RICHARD. THE DREAMER IS ONLY RELIEVED AFTER HE HAS DREAMED. BUT I AGREE THAT THE TRUE FALSE DICHOTOMY IS LIMITING. I GUESS I'M STUCK ON THE POINT THAT THE BASIC REASON WE DREAM IS ALWAYS THE SAME -- AND I'M MAKING EVERYTHING CONFORM TO THAT PREMISE.

Jung suggested that the dream is holding an imagistic solution to these viewpoints, some conscious, some unconscious. Image here is used to mean "give me an image of what happened" rather than a literal picture.

YES

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>Even at >this point I may not understand the dream, but I will have registered the mood of it (the mood of inadequate understanding of something), and this might be enough to make me act. If this fails to register, the recurring dream may become a nightmare, from which I will awake, profoundly disturbed, with the dream fresh in my conscious mind. At that point, I will probably, at a minimum, be motivated to question the dream. If the dream contains even a passing reference to Hegel, this might be enough to finally encourage me to acknowledge the consequences of not having an adequate understanding of Hegel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I like this approach to dream - that we read them for what was missed in waking life. Hillman goes berserk around this, feeling that by reading the dream for helping out in day-world life, we crush the real compensation that is going on, that consciousness itself is the culprit and we all in the 20th century belong to the Cult of Consciousness.

I THINK I'D RATHER BELONG TO THE CULT OF CONSCIOUSNESS THAN THE ALTERNATIVE.

Hey, I thought you liked the honesty of the unconscious? :)

The dream that leads away from consciousness and compensates consciousness is not necessarily going to be "good" for our day- world projects - will probably draw us away from them and into the depths of the soul, a place we had all but lost in late 20th Century Capitalism.

But I like to read the dream for the unknown, setting aside for a moment both day and night world projects, that too being a boundary that dreams will play with.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> The nightmare is perhaps the most noteworthy of dreams because its design (purpose) is such that, as a response, it deliberately affects the conscious, awoken mind; it's the tight-rope the dreamer walks between the subconscious and conscious. Its becomes an appropriate (and arguably necessary) response when the organism determines that its (upper mind) capacity for self-delusion is life-threatening, and/or carries significant negative consequences.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Again, this is something you could test. Do people who score higher on self-deception also have more nightmares?

YOU WOULD THINK THAT THERE WOULD BE CONCRETE DATA ON THIS???????

I haven't seen any.

This will be tough to operationally define. Content analysis says that people score more than half of their dreams as unpleasant (I though you might like that) but this means that more than half of the dreams we have are a kind of low level nightmare.

BY MY RECKONING, MOST OF OUR DREAMS SHOULD BE UNPLEASANT - ASSUMING THAT COMING TO TERMS WITH CERTAIN TRUTHS WE HAVE AVOIDED DURING OUR WAKING IS UNPLEASANT.

Your thesis could be furthered by the work of Alan Seigel who did dream groups after the oakland fire where dozens of families lost their homes. The worst nightmares were with the guilty neighbors whose houses *didn't* get burnt.

OUR DREAMS USE THE EVENTS IN OUR LIVES FOR THEIR CONTENT. BY MY THEORY, PEOPLE WHO FEEL GUILTY BUT AREN'T DECEIVING THEMSELVES ABOUT IT WON'T DREAM. WHAT MAKES MORE SENSE TO ME IS THAT PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T DO THE RIGHT THING DURING THIS CRISIS, AND DECEIVED THEMSELVES ABOUT IT, WOULD HAVE BAD DREAMS ABOUT IT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>Therefore, children, in whom fantasy and unreality have been nurtured since birth, should >experience more nightmares than adults -- as a measure of their unhealthy reluctance to relinquish their fantasy life. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The current thinking on primary process - the unhealthy fantasy mechanisms of projection, denial, conversion reaction, displacement, condensation, symbolizations, ect, are now being reviewed. It used to be thought that primary processes remained undeveloped and infantile. Now it is felt that these processes develop right along with reality testing ego functions. There is no "relinquishing" of fantasy, only repression or development.

DO YOU BELIEVE THIS???

(RCW2): I see that creative, semi-conscious processes of creativity and intuition develop right along side rational processes and reality testing.

Unreality is another story, one usually told by the cultural dominate reality. Be careful to distinguish between the unreality of concrete, sociological and cultural realities.

Most now feel that the problem is not relinquishing fantasy life, but differentiating between fantasy and reality - both realms being useful and important in their own domains. If you look at lucid dreaming, the examples are abundant. Once a person *realizes* they are dreaming, that they are in a ~fantasy~ or imaginal realm, then the nightmare is no longer. So what if a dream killer stabs you, you are only dreaming. The person can still be quite delusional about what in waking life really will make a difference in their life, but quite comfortable in the imaginal realm - no nightmares or bad dreams here.

AS AN ASIDE, RICHARD, I'VE ALWAYS WONDERED WHY ONE WOULD WANT TO AWAKE IN A DREAM IN ORDER TO CONTROL (and corrupt it) ITS CONTENT? DOESN'T THIS DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF THE DREAM, IF THE DREAM'S PURPOSE IS TO CORRECT OUR CONSCIOUS DISTORTIONS OF REALITY .

(RCW2): This is a hotly debated topic these days, the benefits vs consequences of controlling the dream. Some feel that control is disrupting a process that should be able to flow naturally, others feel that there is no conflict in adding consciousness to natural processes. I feel its too late to say we shouldn't influence our dreams. Once we are aware that dreams are, then we have conscious and unconscious desires, fears, plans, thoughts and feelings around them. With this consciousness may come responsibility. We are a long way off from knowing which influences cause what reactions on a grand health-hygiene viewpoint. As to the reasons for becoming lucid, well, its kind of like sexuality, its hard to tell someone else why it is worth it, as the activity is generally inherently rewarding and pleasurable. But not for everyone.

You may also want to check out Ernest Hartmann's work on nightmares. He has a theory about thin and thick boundary people. Thin, porous malleable personalities are more susceptible to nightmares than thick, rigid personalities.

IF SCIENCE EVER CORROBORATES THIS, IT WILL BLOW MY MIND.

(RCW2): Well, remember there that it is *dream recall* we are talking about. You could still hypothesize that rigid people *have* more nightmares, they just don't ever recall them.

Though my experience is that rigid folks have so much
trouble with the imaginal realm that it gets deeply repressed. My feeling is that if you can't swim, you better stay out of deep waters. I feel dreams are not recalled by animals. Since they can't distinguish between real-memory-imagination (like little kids) it would be very un-adaptive to recall dreams.

EXACTLY

That mouse that was over the fence a minute ago when I was asleep, my actually turn out to be rover. People, however, developed language, which can be used to represent things that aren't present. By saying the dream right after waking, the dream recall is increased. Probably there is a "saying" during the dreaming as well. Thus the short to long term memory function that is naturally turned off for dreams is bypassed. Folks who practice this begin to recall more dreams and will occasionally forget they are dreaming and run into some horrid - er, ah, truths and beasts. However, this is sure not the whole story. Combat Trauma victims have dreams that repeat over and over, sometimes for years.

I'VE ALWAYS FELT THAT COMBAT TRAUMA VICTIMS WHO SUFFER FROM RECURRING NIGHTMARES HAVE DIFFICULTY IN JUSTIFYING KILLING OR WHATEVER - THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE THAT THEY HAD NO CHOICE ETC., BUT SOMEHOW, THEY KNOW THEY DID HAVE A CHOICE, THEY DIDN'T BELIEVE IN THAT PARTICULAR WAR ETC. TRUE BELIEVERS, WHO FOUGHT IN THE SAME TRENCHES, WILL NOT HAVE TO DREAM ABOUT IT.

New therapies that involve dream-reentry and alternative endings have now made inroads to helping these people, but they never asked for these horrible re-play dreams. I don't think they are fooling themselves. I think they have become stuck in the literal and damages their movement in the imaginal. Perhaps you can work an angle where they need to come to grips with a new level of reality which they are denying in their fixation on this past event. (I.e, going on would entail giving up some forms of self-delusion about how they can't control everything, or not everything is good, ect,)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>If this can be scientifically verified, it follows that children raised in primitive cultures (i.e. raised more realistically) should be less prone to nightmares than Disneyland's children?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The current anthropological take on primitive cultures is to say there *are* no primitive cultures. They are not raised more realistically or falsely than any other culture, they are simple a culture that survives or it doesn't and the practices are tied to their environment. My guess on the kids with the most nightmares are the ones that 1. Don't differentiate well between concrete reality and imaginal reality I AGREE and 2. Have general feelings of helplessness in their family or lack of it. Note that kids have more animal problem dreams than adults.

PROBABLY BECAUSE ANIMALS, AS IN STORIES OR CARTOONS, PREOCCUPY CHILDREN MORE THAN ADULTS.

When adults get into stressful new situations, they tend to have dreams like when they were children. Its as if a marker gets set up. These markers may help your thesis about stress reduction and dreams.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>Or an adult who is very realistic about himself should dream less (perhaps require less sleep) >than someone who is unrealistic about himself? {Buddhism maintains that the enlightened Buddha doesn't dream? Because he has rid himself of all his delusions?} The challenge is to submit what is now mere theory (with perhaps some predictive value) to the rigors ofscience.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Rob - you might want to keep an eye out for the upcoming book by Gackenbach and LaBerge on dream lucidity and eastern spirituality. There is a little in their last book on

Gackenbach, Jayne (Ed.), (1987). Sleep and Dreams: A Sourcebook. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc (original Pub 1986).

The tests with the long term mediators that can stay conscious during the sleep cycle indicate that instead of dreams "going away" they simply are something going on while the meditators remain calm and watchful.

THIS MAKES PERFECT SENSE

This jives better with the Buddhist idea that when enlightenment occurs, nothing changes, its just that it is more so, the apricot jam is more apricotly, the blue sky more blue.

> Dreams represent an extremely rich, but untapped natural resource, much like the sun's energy. In light of increasing demographic pressures and dwindling natural resources, inter-human relations are becoming more and more strained as we look to the next century. Dreams, as a source of knowledge, might be used to relieve some of these pressure points; but this is to put the cart before the horse. If dream analysis is to have any epistemological credibility, its first priority must be to establish a sound scientific foundation for itself. (Not unlike what Kant tried to do for knowledge). THE END

AS YOU CAN SEE, RICHARD, I AM, BY CONVENTIONAL STANDARDS, TAKING A VERY BLINKERED APPROACH TO THIS - BUT I SUPPOSE I WILL CONTINUE ALONG THIS PATH UNTIL SOMEONE, OR SOMETHING PROVES TO ME THAT I'M CATEGORICALLY WRONG, OR SIMPLY ON THE WRONG TRACK. IF NOTHING ELSE, MY STUBBORN OPPOSTION TO ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF MY LIMITED AND UNTESTED THEORY MIGHT PROVOKE SOME INTERESTING DISCUSSION AND REFLECTION, AND DREAM ANALYSIS MIGHT BENEFIT IN SOME SMALL WAY. BUT THE SUBJECT DOES FASCINATE.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Some last notes. epistemological credibility? Well, I think epistemology has itself crashed into the dust of not being able to justify itself, but it would be interesting to see this developed for intellectual curiosity sake.

THAT MAY BE TRUE, BUT WE ALWAYS KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT WHATEVER IT IS WE ARE TRYING TO KNOW. THEREFOR, THERE MUST BE SOMETHING WE CAN SAY, THAT APPROXIMATES KNOWLEDGE, TO THE QUESTION: WHY DO WE DREAM?

Dream research itself seems so hopelessly split, much like philosophy was before Kant. One side focuses on the mechanisms of function, the other on the uses of dream in the project of making life meaningful and giving it sense. I've already mentioned some research directions on function, the other side, the investigation of dreams as valuable therapy and self-enhancement tools is less developed. I recommend the following study as a jump off point for this second path:

Hill, Clara E., Diemer, R., Hess, S., Hillyer, A, and Seeman, R. (1993). Are the effects of dream interpretation on session quality, insight and emotions due to the dream itself, to projection, or to the interpretation process?
Dreaming, 3(4), 269-280.

These type of studies compare various dream analysis techniques to other texts and then try to find the place of the dream in that context. This approach drops any notion of the dream as a message from the unconscious and rather focuses on the dream as something can be useful in different ways depending on the interpretive system we bring *to* the dream.

IF DREAM ANALYSIS IS TO BE SCIENTIFIED (AN ENORMOUSLY PROBLEMATIC UNDERTAKING) THERE WILL ONLY BE ONE RIGHT ANSWER TO THE MEANING OF A DREAM., UNLESS THE DREAM IS ADDRESSING SEVERAL ISSUES SIMULTANEOUSLY. THIS IS WHAT DREAM ANALYSIS EXPERTS SHOULD BE AIMING FOR?

I think it was Avens who said, we give meaning to the dream, and then it reveals its significance. In this sense our science can investigate the relationship between various interpretive systems and dreams. Note: a lot of people want to leave hermeneutics & interpretation behind altogether. This includes the Lucid dream movement, mutual dreaming, pro-active dreaming, psychic creative dreaming, dream reentry and other various dream approaches. These radically change the meaning of a dream. Instead of being something we decode, it is a realm into which we enter. In this sense , all the baggage of the dayworld is brought along and questions of what folks are doing there and why they are doing it are usually answered in the same way we ask this of life in general. I hope these reflections are all taken as friendly comments.

ABSOLUTELY. I HOPE MY COMMENTS ON YOUR COMMENTS DON'T SOUND TOO PRESUMPTUOUS AND/OR CATEGORICAL. I'VE SIMPLY MAPPED OUT A POSITION, AND FOR THE TIME BEING, I'M GOING TO DEFEND IT UNTIL I'M CONVINCED IT'S NO LONGER WORTH DEFENDING. WHICH ISN'T TO SAY THAT THERE ISN'T CONSIDERABLE ROOM FOR EXPANSION AND ELABORATION. YOU HAVE ALREADY FLOODED MY MIND WITH IDEAS WHICH ARE STILL GERMINATING, AND FOR THIS, I WILL AGAIN THANK YOU.

I like the ideas you are developing and feel they could be expanded to provide some powerful tools in dreamwork, as well as contributing to cognitive psychology and philosophy as well.
Richard rcwilk@dreamgate.com