What the... does this dream mean?

:laughing:

“Da steh ich nun, ich armer Tor! // Und bin so klug als wie zuvor.” - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, “Faust”, 1790 / 1808, S. 27.
Free translation:
“And here, poor fool, I stand once more, // No wiser than I was before.” - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, “Faust”, 1790 / 1808, p. 27.


Interpretations of dream contents are never certain.

They certainly inflamed Wagner’s heart to believe Goethe that Faust did not sell his soul, he just made a bet. The door that you enter in the front, could be the one you exit in the back, depending where the front is. In fact, the front could be the back.

Very helpful thoughts there, Orb… thank you.

As I typed, I too realised the significance of the door in each dream… although the second dream still remains unclear even though it depicts such a precise scenario - no-one was hurt in the imagining of this dream and all characters are fictional :smiley:

It could be, that’s right, but it does not have to be, that’s also right.

And my thoughts? :cry:

I think, my thoughts were just not surrealistic enough, thus they were too realistic. :wink:

Sorry, Mags.

Arminius, Y? because of the Walpurgis night dream.

No, because of [size=150]Y[/size]ou, Orb. :slight_smile:

By the way: Walpurgisnacht - a good idea. What are you going to do then?

(You can also write your answer as private message, if it is going to derail this thread.)

From Goethe’s Faust, scene 22 collaboration with Schiller, Walpurgis Night. Fragments from the lyric poem

Curious Traveler:

This must be masquerade!
How odd!
My very eyes believe I?
Oberon, the bearded God
Here, to night perceive I!

Supernaturalist

I am overjoyed at being here,
And even among the rude ones,
For if bad spirits are 'this clear
There also must be good ones

Oechestra

grayling mist and sleepy cloud
Sun and Moon have banished
Foliage rustles, reeds pipe loud
All the show has vanished

I am terrified of wild animals, but there is more to the dream than just that… I already know that fact without having to dream about it. :icon-rolleyes:

I am not sure which is worse… the bear or the lion? Both probably :neutral_face:

The people with me were strangers, and I’m not sure who the bear/lion represents.

:-k

Here follows the original text:

"Neugieriger Reisender:

Ist das nicht Maskeradenspott?
Soll ich den Augen trauen,
Oberon, den schönen Gott,
Auch heute hier zu schauen?

Supernaturalist:

Mit viel Vergnügen bin ich da
Und freue mich mit diesen;
Denn von den Teufeln kann ich ja
Auf gute Geister schließen.

Orchester:

Wolkenzug und Nebelflor
Erhellen sich von oben,
Luft im Laub und Wind im Rohr -
Und alles ist zerstoben."

  • Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, “Faust” (II), S. 190-194.

Do you like it?

It is from the “Walpurgisnachttraum” (“Dream of the Walpurgis Night”).

Dream of the Walpurgis Night - would that be something for you(r dream), Mags?

Yes, I know, but often it is better to not know who is represented, but the main point is: interpretations of dream contents are rather arbitrary. If we would know how to exactly interpret dream contents, then we were no humans.

Your dreams signifies detachment, extreme maybe, You do not know how to differentiate the lion symbol from the bear.

Andre Breton says, extreme detachment is exactly what a sir real content is. Your content is not real, because Youndo not understand the difference in meaning between various symbols. you are or were detached from Your visitors, because maybe of trust issues, or more so, not really inderstanding them, their motives, language, or what ever. that is the most I am getting from Your first dream, especially. in the second, You are confused by the ins and outs of entrance and exit,many how things or beings can diminish in stature between initial perception, and either the suspension of interpretation of their diminished qualities, …But they really didn’t leave, this is why You may be barring their re entry. It is an in and out process and there may be some fear on Your part that this may harm or change you in some way. but not sure about that part.

The problem is that people often think that dream contents are problems, but they are not, because the brain tries to solve problems which have been experienced in the past - how near or far this past may ever be - for the (plaesure of the) person('s life) it belongs to. A brain has to neurologically save the person('s life) it belongs to. That does not mean that dream contents are not interesting or have nothing to do with reality, but the Interpretations of dream contents are less or even not part of any problem solution but more part of the problem or even the problem itself. So you would have a new dream content in order to solve the Interpretation of your last dream content …, and so on …, if you believed (too much) in the solution of interpretations of dream contents, so that this belief can become a new religion. :wink:

The modern religion is something like an ideology, and the modern deities are Idols, false gods, for example such as dream interpreters or therapists (both formerly known as shamans). So a modern areligious person would have to be one who has nothing to do with this modern religion, because this modern religion is also a modern kind of superstition.

Dream contents themselves are no problem, but they can lead to problems, if the interpretations of dream contensts are the problem.

One should nevertheless talk about dreams but not in the sense that they are expected to do wonders. Brains do wonders! They are neurological, thus biological.
Maybe that a more neutral statement can come again from Goethe:

[list][list][list][list][list][list][list][list][list][list]“Man suche nur nichts hinter den Phänomenen; sie selbst sind die Lehre.”
Free translation:
“Search nothing beyond the phenomena, they themselves are the theory.”

  • Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, “Wilhelms Meisterjahre”, 1821-1829, # 43.[/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u]

I wish I could paraphrase, but recall you seeing that once a dream is interpreted , it impacts reality in some way, and a new content is created, whereby that has to be interpreted. I don’t really see it that way.

I look at it from experience, in the type of dream

which is more rare, just like the theatre within the the theatre, A dream within a dream is not quite as
jagged as that. Dreams are more likes films, spliced
together where one picture leads to another, with a minimum of discontinuity. if there is a break. The viewer automatically fills that in by imagination. The
filmed movement is nothing else then a bunch of spliced stills .
Doubt is removed by the viewer, because he wants to sustain an imaginary scene, as an escape from the
other scene -his, the viewers reality, from which he wants to escape.

Between arising, or awaking, at dawn and going to
sleep at twilight, that interim causes neurological
impressions, and these price certain images and symbols which the dreamer or the dreamers brain, wants to fill by escapeing from the harsh realities
between the dawn and the twilight. What goes on is
similar to the input output mechanism which is displayed in Magsj’s dream literally, as doors, but these are not real doors in the sense that they are
manufactured in the dream state. But the brain
wants to minimize the doubt, by re asserting a willingness on the part of the conscious brain to sustain the illusion. The cinematic literacy of this
concept may be dug up, and I am merely suggesting
this is so, in Jean Renoir’s Grand Illusion.

According to a critic, the scenes work on the level of suggestion and gesture, existential concepts which support the idea,that there is an need for artificiality to sustain or freeze and idea, within virtual frames of reference. The epochs of the reduced vitality or
meaning of this suspension, are like differing scenes, pieced together, but within the dreamlike quality of the various image contents, there is softness at the edges, so that the images will adhere to the
willingness of the participant, to engage a continuity between them, as to make them move and integrate. This causes a feedback process between
the various images, whereby new reinterpretations
need not be made, because parts of it, or the different scenes inflect upon each other various image contents.

You are basically saying the same thing, but Your
implication seems to be, that the interpretation is ,
for the most part, removed from the content and impresses on it an objective non dreamlike quality. on it. In this scheme, presentation and interpretation
are more logically excluded, where the conscious
interpreter, sustains a large degree of objectivity throughout. I think the difference lies
In that the boundary between objectivity and
subjectivity breaks down especially in the rare type of
dream which I have just recently experienced, : the dream within a dream. Here, the brain literally tells the conscious mind that hey, do not forget that this is
a dream, perhaps demanding of it much
restructuring. The difference becomes a matter of functionality, where the identity becomes limited by an internal censor, the infinitesimals close the gaps
to a dangerous degree, and the conscious
subconscious distinction may actually effect the dreamer in his version of what reality may mean to him. (By creating grotesque or hyper inflated images)

I say that we should defend our own nterpretations of our dream contents, because I am for freedom and against any dictatorship, also and especially against the dictatorship of so-called “experts”.

You interpret your dream contents, don’t you? Anf if you tell your dream contents to others, they begin to interpret your dream contents as well, don’t they? And if you tell your dream contents to so-called “experts”, they begin to interpret your dream contents too, don’t they? This implies that there are many interpretations possible and nearly always also present. But which interpretation is true? Probably no one. There is no real “expert” system which can legitimately say: “This (thus: no other!) interpretation is true.” We all interpret our dreams, and we should do it (of course!), but we are not able to find out what the truth of these dream contents are. Interpretations and concepts like “unconscious” or “subconscious” are as much arbitrary as other interpretations and concepts. You can “go” through all of them, and you will not find any of them being really “better” or “more true” than the others. People in New Guinea also interpret dream contents, and their interpretations are very good, perhaps better than the interpretations of the so-called “experts” in Europe, USA, Canada, …, but we do not know and we do not have to know whether they are „more true“ or not. So what? It’s no problem at all.

Many problems are just made, and they are made in order to manage and controil that made “problems” and especially the people that made “problems”.

Two examples:
(1) If a man dreams to kill his father or to sleep with his mother, then he has not necessarily a “problem”, e.g. an “Oedipus complex”. The “Oedipus complex” is an absolutely arbitrary interpretattion, but it is as much believed as the resurrection of Jesus Christ was.
(2) If a woman dreams of e.g. a strong lion or baer, or of a big tower, then she has not necessarily a “problem”, e.g. a “penis envy”. The “penis envy” is also an absolutely arbitrary interpretattion, and it is not as much believed as the resurrection of Jesus Christ was, because the feminism, another absolutely arbitrary interpretation, fobids it.

Arminius,

I think a problem may arise when everyone becomes his or her own dream interpreter. it is hard enough to analyze Yourself, in case of psycho analysis I am aware of Katen Horney, however, most people, the vast majority may find it inconvenient or not within their grasp. Therefore Symbols, concepts, and tools were developed so as to accommodate them, and they would rather have some authority tell them of meaning, rather then live in a perpetual insecurity of maybe this is not right or that.
Authority generally, generated this way, it was a self generated process on a social scale, the authorities taking control would have lost 'power 'in one day if it hadn’t been for the ‘will’ of the people. of course the will is immediately transposed to a singular will as soon as the power transfer happens.

Inndreams , there is a similar power struggle between the conscious and so called sub conscious parts. And You are right, the new psychology has de structured the structural basis of psychoanalysis, and therefore Your objections to interpretations are valid.
However, just because the Oedipus Complex may not have any more validity, then say sucking on a Popsicle doesn’t mean the meaning of dreams have been irrevocably lost. it’s just that people have stopped dreaming, because of the loss of content within their own lives. The film is still going on, the projections still producing content, but it is content that is projected more and more on the basis of what people want to see. And that would be ok too, but they really don’t know what it is they want to see in reality. that is why they go to the movies. To replaced their lost dreams.

No, Orb. Everyone IS always the FIRST interpreter. There is no problem at all and will be no problem at all. The only problem (not only in this case!) is that a few humans try to manage and control the life of all or nearly all other people, so as if these other people were not able to live independently.

There is NO “law” for the interpretation of drem contents.

No, Orb.

Firstly, we are talking about interpretations of dream contents and not about psychonalysis (the psychoanalysis has not and should never have an interpretation monopole!). Mags did not ask whether we know a “good” psychoanalyst.

Secondly, the fact that people had no or at least less problems with dream contents in former days shows that problems are made in order to manage them, to control people, to become rich and thus powerful, or to remain rich and thus powerful. One can not always seperate the psycho-market and the psycho-communism from other living forms (especially from human beings!) in order to excuse the existence of the the psycho-market and the psycho-communism and, if wanted, put them together also in order to excuse the existence of the the psycho-market and the psycho-communism. One has to accept and especially to respect the life of each human.

Thirdly, most people solve their problems by themselves and do not need any help; but the more problems so-called “experts” create the more probelamtic people exist and want to be helped, thus the psycho-market and psycho-communism can grow and grow with the made problems.

That is not proven.

No. There are many interpretations which are more correct than the pschoanalytic interpretations. And the “Oedipus complex” and most other psychoanalytic interpretations are nonsense. Do you believe in that? Nothing can be verified or falsified - it is just arbitrariness, and nearly all of it depends on the belief, faith, trust and the “marketing” and propaganda. Greek mythology and psycho… - that fits, because nothing of the two is really concrete. Don’t get me wrong, please, because I am not saying that psychoanalyisis is not interesting, I am saying that psychoanalyisis is a false theory, a false theology.

Hi, Arminius, You as usual have a majorities opinion,mind that is why an analysis is deemed to be problematic. Therefore, it seems to present a situation where there are no options but for lose on the idea. The minority view has to be looked at, just as in the question of, whether we are heading toward a totally machine controlled environment. The minority opinion,mere too matters.

In my opinion, if it were to matter, has to subscribe tomconnections which occur between the validity of symbolic content of various types of realities, where the sub conscious will no longer be considered as below or under consciousness, because the conscious and the subconscious will be de-differentiated into one level of understanding. When ever this is done, the symbols acquire a different structure, because their economy has changed the spatial temporal relationships. before, topology and economy were on different levels, but now they are squeezed, so they can not be differentiated. From this point, a differing interpretations, vis, economic, political,erotic, will be projected, as objectives , forming the objects with differing backgrounds and framing them in different terms. This variability of conceiving a new aesthetic is already seen in art installations, but are rarely seen or understood as unities.

How Magsj’s dreams of non differentiated living things enters this scheme,- in the bear, lion, blue dog, bird example, is, that they are symbolic projections of meaning, of various attributes usually associated with these kinds of animals.

In this new scheme, there is no need to sink into the subconscious, but only to reflect basic identity in terms of structural identification of the earliest memory of representation. No myth is needed to qualify or disqualify certain repeated patterns, whereas these patterns are constant efforts of integrating form and object, as a product of the projected and acquired forms of understanding.
These integrated Imagos, are also constantly de-integrated, broken down into their parts, while they are being smultaniously built up. This simultaneity causes, or effects the simulation of the virtual as different from the real. This effected state differs again from what Your definition of affected state, per St.James. But it’s only an effect, and the symbol, in this case animals, have a feeling for, or a recognition of this difference, and not a ‘real’ understanding of it.
This feeling comes up as the resulting transfer of neurological excess energy, from the accustomed form of affective apperception. the sub conscious is not under this consciousness as repressed material, it
is an over, or above the real consciousness. It is not repressed, rather the opposite, it tries to garner the parts into a veritable unity, a compression of an excess of affects.

The same with me, I am not advocating psychoanalysis. But something different in its place.
I beg You to skip parts which seem disconnected, and those are the parts the surreal has not been able to garner from an excessive affected state.

No, the reverse is true.

No. An analysis is deemed to be problematic because that psychoanalysis is false and thus problematic.

And why do you not look at the minority?

I belong - as usual (see above) - to a minority - as you also can see in my “balance sheets” in the “machine” thread:

I don’t know what your point is.

The psychoanalysis may be an interesting kind of nihilistic philosophy, but it should not directly have anything to do with personal lives.

One of the main problems is that the psychoanalysis has a strong hierarchy with Freud as the “godfather of psychoanalysis” … and so on … and seems to literally dictate what and who “neurotic” is. Every male has an “Oedipus complex” and every woman has an “Electra complex”, and if they say that they do not have such “complexes”, then they are told that they are “defending”, their “defense mechanism” is revolting against the “godfather of psychoanalysis”. That is dictatorship!

I am against dictatorship!


We should rather talk about Mags’ dream.

I was just about to answer , in different terms. Even if Feud is dismissed as a period piece. And his significance is devalued, or outright dismissed, there is another market out there, one catering to people with dreams. Sometimes disturbing, sometimes alarming and at times appear almost prophetic. They want to know meaning, specifically toward their own interpretation, and sometimes within a broader spectrum , including the contexts and surroundings implied. This is why psychoanalysis stays alive, to navigate the structure of meaning. the nexus is too ingrained. To dismiss it outright.