A thought on dream interpretation (no actual intrp)

[DrmDoc]

Originally Posted by Mythopoet

Jung's psychology is different from Freud's psychology even though both psychologies are first called analytical psychologies. This is because Jung, in discovering the unconscious, discovers the archetypes. He spends the rest of his life working this out. His psychology is a psychology of the archetype. His myth is a myth of meaning.

If I may join your discussion, what if both Freud and Jung were wrong? Suppose there is sufficient evidence, based on the source and nature of their ideas, which suggests their conclusions may be without reliable foundation? I welcome your thoughts.

[unclesirbobbyrobson]

Thats just the phrase that I was lookibng for - "what if both jung and freud were wrong"

I do see some value in jung as he dsicovered archetypes. Freud did understand associations and that is important.

My main problem with freud is that I read through his books on dreams and see precious few examples of actual real life dreams. Its all just theory.

Jung has a few more dreams in his books but still it does not seem a complete work. Its a major flaw with so many books on dreams. You can get hundreds of dream dictionaries and half of them never even include a single dream.

Personally my own understanding of dreams is based on my own dreams and those of people I know well. In those dreams I can see a major connection between the dream world and recent events.

Surely the dream mind is linked to the brain and brain functions. I am not saying that the dream mind is a computer. But it is a storage device. Perhaps these symbols that they use are storage tools. We collect a number of feelings and situations which all describe the same feeling. They are linked together by a neural network. These patterns form connections between many things that are in some ways different but all which have something in common.

therefor the following ideas are similar
1. A terrorist explodes a bomb causing utter havoc in downtown baghdad.
2. Your mother and father have a huge argument which causes terror in your own life and completely disrupts normal day to day activities.
3. A new employee joins the company and changes the whole work dynamic in an office and thuis throws causes terror.

This is what the dream mind uses. It uses one symbol to describe and capture feelings which are quite similar about another situation.

Its not rational in that its not got a strict question and strict answer. It is not a computer. It is though a conceptual based mind. Its about ideas and feelings. Its about thoughts and constructed thoughts. Its not about facts and figures.
------------------------
Many dreams simply link to very immediate urges and problems which demand attention immediately. If you are sexually aroused when you wake then interpret the dream in that sense. It is likely to link to involve sexual and fleshy emotions. It will include a real sense of excitement.

Dream symbolism and dream dictionary interpretation - How to interpret dreams Interpreting dreams
Dream symbolism - How to use dream symbols Triggers for dreams
A dream dictionary that explores the variety of meanings in a dream symbol Dream dictionary

The pages above all help you to learn the basics of dream interpreting

[mythopoet]

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

If I may join your discussion, what if both Freud and Jung were wrong? Suppose there is sufficient evidence, based on the source and nature of their ideas, which suggests their conclusions may be without reliable foundation? I welcome your thoughts.

Hi-

This is a simply marvelous question!

What it does for me and to me brings me back to Heraclitus: " You will not reach the ends of psyche so deep its law." One simply must revert. What one considers as a result of this reversion notes psyche expresses depth in metaphorical language. Psyche's depth language is a metaphor that has no base. This happens to be the position of James Hillman regarding psyche and dream. What is being expressed when psyche expresses this way? What shows forth? What shows forth is an image. Psyche is image. Images are metaphors that have no base in time. You can take the idea that grounds depth psychology at its word. This is exactly what JH does. He writes,

"That...reflects the gap between the founders of depth psychology [Freud, Jung & others] and us, who follow in this nonliteral hermeneutic era. They had to have bedrock, although they knew and sometimes said that these bedrock were images, no more substantial than fantasy. Therefore our way of working with dreams can only make baseless claims and, like each dream each night, asks you to accept 'the baseless fabric of this vision.' Image is psyche and cannot revert except to its own imagining.

This quote actually describes one of my own anima adversions to dream 'interpretations.' Where the contents of a dream are made to revert into real life events, the soul of the dream and what it expresses and wants is distorted and devalued. The dream psychology reverts to an ego psychology;dream soul to ego soul & dream images to egoic imagination (that of the interpreter!)

Alchemy, too has been marvelous in the way it gets to what psyche is and again shows psyche is image. JH wrote about this pointing to psychology's problem. (The book was nominated for a pulitzer.) In this book, "Re-visioning Psychology", is the following "...both the alchemical process and imaginal soul processes work within minimal space and indicate that the soul “is not moved by our moving through it” (Revisioning 93).

The dream is like this minimal space. And, one must keep in mind this space is nowhere

JH furthers, It is we not it who require changing, the closed space, and its heat of oppression expressing pathos, for this reminds us that the idea of interiority refers to psychological space (a realm of depth) apprehended through inwardness of image.

One begins to recognize the minimal space, the space of interiors, dream space, the closed space is imaginal body. The nature of this imaginal body is psyche. The psyche of your own nature and the nature of the psyche itself are one. That one is an image. Tat vam asi. Thou art that. When we dream we be come no thing. Psyche is no thing. The ground that has no base has depth. The interiority expressed as the dream marks this space we haunt.

The space of the dream tells us that ego’s voice (our very dream presence) already carries and intends, like sound intends an echo, another consciousness at the boundary between where the audible and unspeakable meet. This is the imaginal consciousness guiding us throughout our experience in soul’s zone of re-visioning ego through images of the imagination. The process is poetic and many, many scholars now believe the basis of mind is poetic as well.


Blessings,
mythopoet

[DrmDoc]

Hi Unclesirbobbyrobson and Mythopoet,

We tread on sacred ground with the suggestion that either Freud or Jung’s ideas lack foundation. However, these most respected and learned men are not to blame for any of their likely misperceptions. They were victims of their era.

Freud and Jung did not have the science and technology we enjoy today. They did not have the means to look beneath the imagery to the empirical source of dreaming. If they had, being men of science, they likely would have perceived the brain and brain function laid bare. It is not possible to understand the true nature of dreams and dreaming without a foundation in the nature of brain function—in my opinion.

Some sleep and dreaming researchers are now beginning to understand that dreaming is a form of consciousness; i.e., our sleeping brain has to wake-up to dream. When our brain awakes amid sleep, dreaming is how it interprets the influences it perceives upon arousal. The images in our dreams—the language of our unconscious mind—are interpretations of influences. So, what are these influences?

We know that the experiences in our dreams do not originate from our concurrent experiences in physical reality while in bed asleep; i.e., eating an apple in our dream does not reflect our actual experiences while asleep in bed. Dreaming is a mental experience; therefore, the influences our dreams interpret are mental. The people, places, and things we experience while dreaming interpret something mental. I welcome your thoughts.

[unclesirbobbyrobson]

"Dreaming is a form of consciousness"

I would pretty much agree with that

Its long been known that we replay things during sleep. Lucid dream research shows that we can replay learning to ski during sleep. We actually relive the experience.

Also in nightmares and in many other dreams we replay events and actually feel very strong feelings. WHY?

Perhaps this is to do with the way the brain works. The brian uses a process of neural networks. Perhaps we have to actually have to experience such feelings in order to reorder our neural networks. We maybe have to reinforce certain patterns. Or maybe we have to actually have to reshape our feelings and bring balance nback to our thoughts. When we feel fear in real life our dream world helps balance things up with some calmness.

Personally I believe that there are many different levels on which dreamds work. They perform multiple functions. Some link to conceptual feelings whilst others link to emotional feelings. But they all deal with constructed feelings and thoughts. They are all linked to higher thinking

------------------------
Dreams are fascinating but maybe its best not to delve too deeply into their meanings and seek advice. Try not to rely on them as dreams are notoriously difficult to interpret. Yet they do tend to concentrate on recent events and new feelings. You should be able to spot the formation of your own conceptual emotions(with some practice).Deeply hidden inside a dream is some conception perhaps to the previous day. Some slight change in your own thoughts (so concentrate on those changes and see if they maybe featured in the dream).

The main fascination of dreams is how they link to the storage and formation of conceptual feelings. Conceptual feelings must be stored in the brain and perhaps the dreams that we have show how we store such ideas. Instead of using the word STRUGGLE the dream mind instead uses a situation involving a struggle. Instead of using the phrase "closer and closer" the dream mind instead uses the symbol of golf where the object is to get closer and closer to some eventual aim (to pot the ball).

Instead of trying to interpret your dreams just go to your own conceptual feelings and then see what recent thoughts could feature in your reams. Say some argument or situation from the day before. Maybe your dream could link to some task or issue about to be faced on the actual day of the dream?


These pages are especially helpful in showing you how to interpret dreams

Dream symbolism and dream dictionary interpretation - How to interpret dreams Interpreting dreams
Dream symbolism - How to use dream symbols Triggers for dreams
A dream dictionary that explores the variety of meanings in a dream symbol Dream dictionary

-------------
SCARBOROUGHSURFCITY - Scarborough surfing photos from the north and south bay
-------------
Dream interpreting -Online line computer dictionary a computer program which searches out dream symbols.

[mythopoet]

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Hi Unclesirbobbyrobson and Mythopoet,

... It is not possible to understand the true nature of dreams and dreaming without a foundation in the nature of brain function—in my opinion....

...I welcome your thoughts.

Hi-

That is one approach to understanding. It is not the only one nor is it the most important one. The most important approach to understanding (anything) is to approach the "I don't know" with a movable center not a fixed center in thinking.

Nature is what is. How we approach and what we approach with will determine what we see, shape what we see and limit what gets seen. There is also no such thing anymore (according to many thinkers across multiple disciplines) as a purely objective approach. And so, we are asked to remember with our own preferences and the mythic thought at work in them to tell via the image(s) and word(s) not by way of absolutes and certainties but with wonder and openness since we know these images of imagination no longer ground reality but open it up. This is why it is no longer enough to merely pronounce what we know. We must share what we are using that unpacks this way we "know" it.

In my own knowing I will not be limiting myself to only science and technology nor will I be giving science and technology superior status over other forms of knowing. I will not be devaluing the imaginal approach to knowing the "I don't know", in other words. Science and technology is not THE first knower. There is no linear pronouncement as is where you express an idea and point to your own sources that root them as only informing from within the disciplines of science and technology. Whereas to be responsive to the fixed center in your idea as you express it, I will be considering my own reflections back through the image that is not there holding your fixity there in stead. (BTW, the image not here in your narrative is the veiled Isis and I am shaping this reflection or fictive narrative response back to you around this image!)

I understand the image at work, you see & I am taking the idea that grounds depth psychology at its word by taking this image into reversion. At least, I will always try to do this. There is no other concern on my part except to open thinking up to the uncertainty that we live.

Many continue to consider reality's expression from this vantage point today because of the current understand of what psyche is doing. Psyche does not ground the real. It provides instead, a fiction or "myth". Psyche is not in the flesh. The flesh is in the psyche. And one more tenet here. Psyche is nowhere and no thing. It expresses interiority without having interiority. It has no exteriority either. It is that which opens dialogue between any two things; spirit and nature/ mind and matter/visibles and invisibles, etc. Also, when working a myth one remembers about myths that myth is a penultimate hide not an ultimate one (Joseph Campbell). The myth opens it does not ground.

There have always been two contradictory approaches to understanding nature and a certain image walks here from the very beginning of the words "Phusis kruptesthai philei." as Heraclitus pronounced them, "Nature loves to Hide." The allegorical figure here is the veiled Isis. Pierre Hadot, an eminent authority on Neoplatonic philosophy, addresses the exploration of nature in Western thought across more than two millennia in a recent book, The Veil of Isis. He traces what kind of reflection and knowing this aphorism unfolds, the metanymic string of images, in other words, and allows the arguement to develop historically and analytically through its empiricism. This argument will draw on both the ancients and later thinkers such as Goethe, Rilke, Wittgenstein, and Heidegger to interpret and reflect this aphorism of Heraclitus. Hadot discovers what the aphorism has come to mean. Over time the words of H have come to mean that all that lives tends to die; that Nature wraps herself in myths; and (for Heidegger) that Being unveils as it veils itself. Meanwhile the pronouncement has been used to explain everything from the opacity of the natural world to our post modern anguish.

Hadot unfolds in this work a picturing of the two contradictory approaches to the 'I don't know' in what I know and the way I know it. The following is taken from a review on Amazon of this book...

From these kaleidoscopic exegeses and usages emerge two contradictory approaches to nature: the Promethean, or experimental-questing, approach, which embraces technology as a means of tearing the veil from Nature and revealing her secrets; and the Orphic, or contemplative-poetic, approach, according to which such a denuding of Nature is a grave trespass. In place of these two attitudes Hadot proposes one suggested by the Romantic vision of Rousseau, Goethe, and Schelling, who saw in the veiled Isis an allegorical expression of the sublime. "Nature is art and art is nature," Hadot writes, inviting us to embrace Isis and all she represents: art makes us intensely aware of how completely we ourselves are not merely surrounded by nature but also part of nature.

Best,
mythopoet

[mythopoet]

Originally Posted by mythopoet

Hi-


... two contradictory approaches to nature: the Promethean, or experimental-questing...the Orphic, or contemplative-poetic... Hadot proposes one suggested by the Romantic vision of Rousseau, Goethe, and Schelling...Hadot writes, inviting us...art makes us intensely aware of how completely we ourselves are not merely surrounded by nature but also part of nature...

Hi- I should like to honor Hadot's third term which is not a tertium quid (a third thing) but is an expression non datur (a no thing) or an expressing in sublimation through artistic representation of what cannot quite be told.

I've thought a little while and wondered what poem of my own would be right here. So I went and spent some time rereading the poems in my first poetry volume and think there is a poem from here I can share...

I live in the flame of a still desire
I flicker there
A not-lived love
Shadowing these likenesses
Living beyond the ear of my own speech
I cannot hear myself and not hear
My self say that without hesitation
I ask--no plead for consistency
in an instance without constancy
Now who can I suppose flickers there?
Seems all I can do is suppose
Compose in the everymore
Which is nothing more than
No thing speaking like some thing
Whose meaning, means a thing reflecting
Always more than just one meaning
Meaning of course, reflecting itself
Which could mean at once, opposing things
(and infinitely does)

She flickers there
Like the somebody
She isn't

© 2004 stephanie pope, A Still Desire, Like A Woman Falling

Bless,
mythopoet

[Jennings]

Having attempted to read the above posts I became overwhelmed by academic jargon! There is nothing sacred nor magical about dream nor its interpretation. The earlier posts to this thread hovered around the truth and the truth in dream does not reveal itself in unrelated concrete terms so one can readily discard any dictionary of meaning. The physiology of the brain has no relevance to the meaning of dream so this suggestion too can be jettisoned.

It is accepted that the mind is a complex organ with many aspects but what is being considered here is one aspect solely connected to the language of dream which speaks to us using a universal language that any nationality can understand. This language is metaphoric. The metaphors reveal the theme to the dream which arises from the unique experience of every individual and hence the reason why concrete terms are invalid (in this process) and are of no consequence.

The mind requires to be kept constantly occupied and while the body is asleep, the energy of the mind readily attaches itself to the emotional content of our lives and will regurgitate recent emotional 'highs'. Within this context that nice inner-self of which we all believe attempts to put right that which concerns us, almost as if it is providing guidance. It is a kind of clash between the self and society's mores. Others will suggest that it is between the conscious and the unconscious aspects to our existence but those terms are just 'a rose by another name'.

Each aspect of dream interpretation relates solely to the dream's entirety. As each dream is based on the unique experience of the dreamer then the key to its interpretation is found in examining the entire dreamscape and looking at its various metaphor; like a jigsaw puzzle one puts the pieces together until the intended picture reveals itself.

The universal language of metaphor goes back to antiquity and is contained in all ancient writings and, today, in the story elements of the silver-screen in particular. Many people enjoy fiction but few understand its meaning which is hidden in its theme and behind its metaphors.

Dream analysis is simply being introspective like peeling away the layer's of 'onion skins' to discover our basic fears or, alternatively, what motivates us. Like all other aspects to life, it is simple when one understands but forget that there is anything magical about it. Magic has nothing to do with dreaming, however, as is evident, it does help us to relieve our fantasies and especially when the libido is high.

Enjoy your dreams!

[mythopoet]

Originally Posted by Jennings

Dream analysis is simply being introspective like peeling away the layer's of 'onion skins' to discover our basic fears...

Well, alot said but what is really going on here when all is done being said?

Even before getting into it I would like to honor the other posts and persons who posted by saying how important each of their perspective has been and is to the communal understanding in the psyche of the dream and in communal psyche.

Personally, I am always leery of any comment that generalizes in sweeping dismissals of the statements of others and which really are trying to "dumb down" and shut out what gets looked at and talked about in the reasoning and ways of others.

I also have personally found the insights of science and tech important to understanding dream psyche.


I have found the reasoning in philosophy helpful to understanding. Of course, before I could understand these positions I had to read books and encounter words and ideas. I had to be willing to sort through these kinds of narratives and make certain I understood the "jargon" of their respective disciplines so I could talk across disciplines. Jung in his day was not a Jungian. He ways an analytic psychologist with a background in internal medicine. He corresponds with Pauli, a physicist. Here is one example of Science, psychology, and medicine talking the language of dreams past the "jargon of their respective disciplines. They do so by talking through the very language of these disciplines to open into the wonder that makes us new.


Being able to do something like that matters another kind of "universal" language, one not based on any kind of sweeping generality but upon understanding differences and honoring a variety of voices; such voice invites all of us into participation through discussion of ideas, some of which are at work through implicit bias. Implicit bias works because you do not see it working (that is one of the things the word, "unconscious" means) And, you and I will not see or know that until someone else, through another perspective, points it out to us.

At the risk of being accused of magical thinking, It is a participation mystique, metaphorcially speaking, of course. One suspends one's personal perferences and beliefs and one enters the narrative of another like one enters the movie theatre to watch the show. One enters the movie as if what the screen shows is a real world and one slips into the onion skins there and participates for real.

What you are always trying to do when you do this is experience the subjectivities that go into making the story up, the one being told on screen. Then, it really happens to you even as it never did. Because you can suspend belief you can get at how something is so for someone else and how it may or may not be quite like that. The other psyche is other and wholly other. And, you respect this, or should.

So I may disagree, even possess an anima adversion (this may be part of my own boogie, boogie that scares the poster, perhaps?) but I value the onion skins that operate in the luminous other. No one has to peel these away. Why not peal them away instead? This way these ideas announce themselves and when announced can be repostioned like dancing repositions the steps of dance partners. Why not teach each other the dance and learn to dance together beautifully?

One thing I admire tremendously about this forum is how it invites these many different kind of responses to come and co-reside here. This is why you will see me say what it is I find appealing and not appealing and you will see me back this up with subjectivities that go into the making of that. But, you will never ever ever see me not be respectful of the positions of others. (ever) The posts to this strand have been thoughtful and dignified expressions and for the most part, respectful. It is my hope it will continue to be this way.

As to getting into what was said in this last post, I change my mind about providing a reflection with regard it. My jargon will be over the top.

Wishing well to all,
mythopoet

[DrmDoc]

Hello

Originally Posted by Jennings

Having attempted to read the above posts I became overwhelmed by academic jargon! There is nothing sacred nor magical about dream nor its interpretation. The earlier posts to this thread hovered around the truth and the truth in dream does not reveal itself in unrelated concrete terms so one can readily discard any dictionary of meaning. The physiology of the brain has no relevance to the meaning of dream so this suggestion too can be jettisoned.

Although I agree with your statement, “There is nothing sacred nor magical about dream nor its interpretation,” you shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the relevance of brain function; especially, when you may not have sufficiently explored that relevance.

Empirically, dreaming is not possible without brain function. Whatever we think we know about dreams and dreaming is incomplete and unreliable without a foundation in how the brain evolved to dream. We are not the only animals that dream; most mammals, some fish and reptiles appear to dream as well. Whatever ideas we form about the nature and meaning of dreams must also apply to these animals.

We apply metaphysical and metaphorical significance to our dreams as though we are special and our experiences unique. Although we are the dominant species, we share an undeniable heritage with all life on this planet beginning with the very first forms of life. The reason why we dream and what our dreams mean is the same reason why other animals dream and what their dream experiences likely suggest. The key to that reason and meaning is brain function as determined by brain evolution.

Dreaming is arousal in the brain amid sleep that can be linked to the vigilance ancestral animals required between feeding cycles. The images in our dreams are the physical/material references that our brain applies to the mental influences it detects when it arouses amid sleep. When our dreams involve homes, for example, those homes describe mental structures; dream pizza describes some mental food; and dream people describe the mental effect of their social influence. Essentially, our dreams describe the mental effects of those social experiences and influences that have a persistent affect on our mental peace. I welcome your thoughts.