That's what the publisher of my version of the book calls Freud's work, in the sense that it influences or bears new ideas and views of dream interpretation. However, I'm not using it in that sense. I'm using it here in the sexual sense because the publisher obviously meant to call Freud's work "seminal" as a double entendre because it also contains many, many, many sexual references.
I'm not saying Freud can't keep his head straight, but in many of his analyses, especially in this particular section on sources of dreams, he always finds a sexual connection the tiniest little detail. For example, "She puts a candle into a candlestick; but the candle is broken, so that it does not stand up. The girls at school say she is clumsy; but she replies that it is not her fault." Given the context, the candle is an obviously phallic symbol (i.e.: represents the male sex organ). And because the candle is broken, it does not stand up and therefore represents presumably her man's impotence. Had I (or Freud) not given it sexual context, I wonder how you, the reader, or myself would've interpreted the candle as. If I incorporated wish fulfillment, I could've said she didn't like a candle in real life and so in her dream, the candle was broken so she would have an excuse not to use it. My basic question is whether or not dreams derive themselves from mostly sexual references and connections. Freud thinks so; he's even devoted a large section on looking out for common sexual symbols (much later in the book). Of course he's an expert on how humans think, so maybe he knows that humans are prone to dreaming up sexual content.
Among the other sexual connections are the German word "uberzieher" for overcoat; in one dream, Freud mistakenly puts one on thinking it was his own coat. He connects the overcoat to male contraceptive, but doesn't say how. All he says is, "[the overcoats], which obviously refer to an appliance appertaining to the technique of sex." Freud is sticking with his idea to not toss out any seemingly insignificant details, but it seems that many of those he takes the time to interpret end up being sexual references. Could he be saying that because these seemingly insignificant details are connected to sexuality in some way or another, that we, as humans, are surrounded constantly by sexuality (as we are in dreams)? Like, the fact that dreams seem to consistently have sexual references could possibly confirm that humans, on the simplest level, are sexual beings. I guess that's what Freud's implying, or even proving with this book as he goes along in dream interpretation. I mean, why else would he mention it so often? It must be that.
1 comment:
Actually, it varies on the person's life experiences on how they interpret a dream. You said that you could not see how that candle dream was interpreted as a sexual inference. But the moment I started reading about the dream with the candle and how she couldn't put it in the candlestick because it was broken, the first thing in my mind was pretty much exactly what Freud said. You, Freud, and me have had different life experiences, which leads us to see certain things in different ways. For example, if a teenager sees a video-game about WWII he might think it looks fun, but if a WWII veteran sees such a game, he would be deeply offended. I believe Freud's concepts of dream interpretations to be flawed for that matter, not everyone sees things the same way, so they can't dream something that symbolizes something they never knew.
Post a Comment