Dream inquiry.

“Once we learn to share our dreams in the right way with a partner or a group, we have an excellent recourse both for understanding our dreams and for determining the right action to honor them” p.28 Active Dreaming.

What the fuck is the right away? Pardon my french, but I ask sincerely…

“The common language available to me for the objectification of my experiences is grounded in everyday life and keeps pointing back to it even as I employ it to interpret experiences in finite province of meaning.  Typically, therefore, I ‘distort’ the reality of the latter as soon as I begin to use the common language in interpreting them, that is, I translate the non everyday experiences back into the paramount reality of everyday life.  This may be readily seen in dreams.” -Luckman and Berger

I have two distinct points to make about the dialectical world in which these two passages interact. First is a personal remark.  I am unsure within myself whether I wish to impart more credence to the latter statement on the pretense that I don’t want to face the fact that, if the former statement be true,  I may be missing out on an intrinsic component within myself which would allow me to decipher the cryptic code of spirituality guided messages (dreams), or whether I believe in it because I do truly believe that we all subjectively intake symbolism differently.  Now I know that the first statement does not present a predefined conjectural system of dream analysis; yet its intrinsic ambiguity (the right way to share a dream is made obvious to the reader by the analysis of the writer, and thus the correct way to share, even though it may be a very open equation, is in opposition to the wrong ways of sharing) is presented to us in a setting of butterflies, cotton wood flowers and problem facing…
The other point I wish to make is that the two perspectives on dreaming, aforementioned, are of completely different depths and viewpoints.  Whereas one is perceiving dreams according to a backdrop of miscellaneous folklor, quilting the whole in a beautifully ambiguous spirituality, the other is perceiving it as being part of a ‘realistic’ system of social incorporation which naturally -intrinsically- interprets codes according to a predisposed order of symbols (language).  One is fully artsy fartsy – the other is overly, yet compellingly, realistic and to the point.

I see truth in both-although I give more importance to the realistic view – I feel that, unwillingly, language does have a coercive effect on the way we intake the world.

This entry was posted in Reflections. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s