It's a little funny how Jung started off using Freud as a frequent example (this was to lay down the foundation of dream knowledge of his time). I've mentioned that Jung has mentioned the wish-fulfillment as part of Freud's ideas (and many other things like symbols and concealment, etc.). However, as Jung finishes up his section on the aspects of dream psychology, I find that he is deviating from Freud. Obviously, there would be no point in writing the text if he were just reiterating Freud. In fact, Jung tosses in many other dream functions with wish-fulfillment into the dream function pool. Basically, Jung is saying that dreams do much more than fulfill wishes. Just in the entry below, Jung introduced the compensatory and prospective functions. Along the way he introduces reductive functions and various others. But the main point here is that Freud was narrow-minded for claiming that all dreams are simply unconscious ideas symbolized mixed with wish-fulfillment.
One of my commenters (ille est: vitor p3), mentioned this fact as well. If I recall correctly, he mentioned that perhaps the dream-analyst sees the wish-fulfillment only because s/he believes it is there; i.e.: their mind is not open to other possibilities. This is an interesting argument. Jung drags on and on about the complexity of the mind and how Freud only uses one and only one model for dreams (wish-fulfillment). I find a connection between Freud's (maybe Jung's as well) take on dream functions and their views on dreams in general (remember finality?).
Freud was the one who bought into causality, the cause of the dream. For Freud, wish-fulfillment was the only function for dreams. Therefore, the cause of the dream is the wish because it needs to be fulfilled. That wish is the cause and that aligns perfectly with Freud's approach on dreams (causality and the wish-fulfillment function of dreams). Freud's initial work on dreams (wish-fulfillment) seems to have led him to limit his ideas about dreams (the focus on causality instead of Jung's finality [or whatever other approaches there are]). In short, Freud only represents one narrow view.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Functions
Jung describes two functions of dreams: compensatory and prospective. The former is where the subconscious reveals to the conscious (in a dream) information that could not make it to the conscious during the day (or whenever you are awake). Freud talks about this particular function (compensatory, that is). The latter "is an anticipation in the unconscious of future conscious achievements...like a preliminary exercise or sketch, or a plan roughed out in advance" (41).
That is a rather interesting thing to know that the brain is actually doing work while you sleep. I don't mean just stringing bits of memory and images together and fulfilling a wish, but also working through outcomes and plans as well. Actually I think I have something, consider the following: the subconscious picks up information as you live your life: problems, information, feelings, and so on. Then, as a part of the prospective function in dreams, the subconscious works out stuff like how to fix a problem in your life, or what might happen if you did so and so tomorrow at school. If the subconscious works out something or plans something, then it might remain during the next day. Considering that the subconscious can influence the conscious, then the solution or plan the subconscious made influences how you act the next day. In short, the subconscious works out your immediate life for you during dreams.
So, the saying, "sleep on it," when you have a hard time answering a question, could be quite literal. In the event that you encounter a huge problem that you can't figure out, perhaps, you could let it be...not give it any conscious thought and simply sleep. And when you get to the next day, your subconscious may have worked out a decision and well you know the rest: you make your decision (probably under the influence of the subconscious's nocturnal work).
That is a rather interesting thing to know that the brain is actually doing work while you sleep. I don't mean just stringing bits of memory and images together and fulfilling a wish, but also working through outcomes and plans as well. Actually I think I have something, consider the following: the subconscious picks up information as you live your life: problems, information, feelings, and so on. Then, as a part of the prospective function in dreams, the subconscious works out stuff like how to fix a problem in your life, or what might happen if you did so and so tomorrow at school. If the subconscious works out something or plans something, then it might remain during the next day. Considering that the subconscious can influence the conscious, then the solution or plan the subconscious made influences how you act the next day. In short, the subconscious works out your immediate life for you during dreams.
So, the saying, "sleep on it," when you have a hard time answering a question, could be quite literal. In the event that you encounter a huge problem that you can't figure out, perhaps, you could let it be...not give it any conscious thought and simply sleep. And when you get to the next day, your subconscious may have worked out a decision and well you know the rest: you make your decision (probably under the influence of the subconscious's nocturnal work).
Friday, February 15, 2008
Analysis
As I was reading Jung, I realized one thing that I never realized while reading Freud. Dreams occur because the subconscious has something to say, usually about our subconscious desires (wishes). That's fairly simple. In addition, dreams have a "censor", that is, they hide information, especially drastic ones such as the need to kill someone, with symbols to make them seem less morally shocking to the dreamer. Okay, that's all right.
Jung says that dream analysis can be very shallow or very deep. The shallow kind goes along these lines: "someone dreams that he is walking down a street-suddenly a child crosses in front of him and is run by a car" and "he recognizes the street as one down which he had walked on the previous day. The child he recognizes as his brother's child...The car accident reminds him of an accident...which he had only read in a newspaper" (26). Obviously, some people are satisfied with that, some aren't. The deep kind is the kind that Jung and Freud always use, those lengthy analyses and they have a much more purposeful turnout.
So, the problem I've discovered concerns the lack of dream analysis; what happens if someone only analyzes shallowly (or in the worst case, does not analyze at all)? If dreams are supposed to send some sort of subconscious message to us that it expects us to take and use, why would our subconscious hide it under symbols? I'm quite aware of censorship, however, if we consider the layman, he would never know how to interpret his own dream and its content. Therefore, the dream just failed to inform us of whatever it had to inform us of. In short, dreams are technically psychic processes that fail their purpose when not given consideration, which happens quite often (after all, how many people have read Freud and Jung? Not many.).
In addition, dreams have probably been around since the beginning of man (or to be safe, circa 100 BCE [the Romans had a word for dream, "somnium", so I know they dreamt way back in 100 BCE]). However, psychology and certainly Freud did not exist back then. The ancients probably did not have the analytical knowledge and discoveries of Freud to understand their own dreams, so why would dreams occur in humans, when they natively do not have the ability to make sense of them? We are only able to do so now through modern, cognitive science. I suppose one could say nature was flawed in giving us dreams which we intrinsically cannot interpret.
Before I end...I'm a bit confused on the number of posts we're supposed to have. I've heard 17, and I have removed all posts that weren't really posts (i.e.: update posts), and I know I've skipped one week (this will make up for it) and according to the archive on the right, I will have only 16 after this one. I am positive I have posted every week (minus one for which this post makes up). Odd, isn't it?
Jung says that dream analysis can be very shallow or very deep. The shallow kind goes along these lines: "someone dreams that he is walking down a street-suddenly a child crosses in front of him and is run by a car" and "he recognizes the street as one down which he had walked on the previous day. The child he recognizes as his brother's child...The car accident reminds him of an accident...which he had only read in a newspaper" (26). Obviously, some people are satisfied with that, some aren't. The deep kind is the kind that Jung and Freud always use, those lengthy analyses and they have a much more purposeful turnout.
So, the problem I've discovered concerns the lack of dream analysis; what happens if someone only analyzes shallowly (or in the worst case, does not analyze at all)? If dreams are supposed to send some sort of subconscious message to us that it expects us to take and use, why would our subconscious hide it under symbols? I'm quite aware of censorship, however, if we consider the layman, he would never know how to interpret his own dream and its content. Therefore, the dream just failed to inform us of whatever it had to inform us of. In short, dreams are technically psychic processes that fail their purpose when not given consideration, which happens quite often (after all, how many people have read Freud and Jung? Not many.).
In addition, dreams have probably been around since the beginning of man (or to be safe, circa 100 BCE [the Romans had a word for dream, "somnium", so I know they dreamt way back in 100 BCE]). However, psychology and certainly Freud did not exist back then. The ancients probably did not have the analytical knowledge and discoveries of Freud to understand their own dreams, so why would dreams occur in humans, when they natively do not have the ability to make sense of them? We are only able to do so now through modern, cognitive science. I suppose one could say nature was flawed in giving us dreams which we intrinsically cannot interpret.
Before I end...I'm a bit confused on the number of posts we're supposed to have. I've heard 17, and I have removed all posts that weren't really posts (i.e.: update posts), and I know I've skipped one week (this will make up for it) and according to the archive on the right, I will have only 16 after this one. I am positive I have posted every week (minus one for which this post makes up). Odd, isn't it?
Is F better than C?
No, I'm not talking about letter grades. I'm talking about the two different standpoints on dreams: finality or causality; Jung or Freud.
Jung continues his text by introducing the idea of dream interpretation and analysis. Along the way, he makes several distinctions between Freud and himself, including their standpoints on dreams. Freud, he says, "starts from a desire or craving, that is, from the represeed dream-wish" (31). Essentially, Freud sees dreams simply as the fulfillment of a wish. Jung introduces his idea of finality, where the focus of dream analysis is the goal, or the purpose of the dream.
Jung claims that causality is rigid and very scientific. However, he says that finality digs deeper into the psychic processes.
He does provide a few examples, but as a normal reader, I do not exactly see how causality differs from finality. Allow me to explain, if dream interpretation's point is to discover the purpose of a dream, then the purpose of the dream is the goal of any method of interpretation. Therefore, causality has that goal in mind. Then, how does causality differ from finality, which focuses on purpose? Jung makes it quite clear that causality focuses on the dream in cause and effect, and finality on the "final" thing or purpose. However, it still continues to baffle me since dream analysis is about purpose.
With that aside, Jung does say that finality does what causality cannot. However, he says that both should be used to get a complete picture. As a writer who is probably trying to get his own theories and ideas out, Jung perhaps, just perhaps, added that in so he did not necessarily reject Freud's ideas (and therefore cause the body of psychologists to think he was uneducated or mad for rejecting the well-praised Freud).
Jung continues his text by introducing the idea of dream interpretation and analysis. Along the way, he makes several distinctions between Freud and himself, including their standpoints on dreams. Freud, he says, "starts from a desire or craving, that is, from the represeed dream-wish" (31). Essentially, Freud sees dreams simply as the fulfillment of a wish. Jung introduces his idea of finality, where the focus of dream analysis is the goal, or the purpose of the dream.
Jung claims that causality is rigid and very scientific. However, he says that finality digs deeper into the psychic processes.
He does provide a few examples, but as a normal reader, I do not exactly see how causality differs from finality. Allow me to explain, if dream interpretation's point is to discover the purpose of a dream, then the purpose of the dream is the goal of any method of interpretation. Therefore, causality has that goal in mind. Then, how does causality differ from finality, which focuses on purpose? Jung makes it quite clear that causality focuses on the dream in cause and effect, and finality on the "final" thing or purpose. However, it still continues to baffle me since dream analysis is about purpose.
With that aside, Jung does say that finality does what causality cannot. However, he says that both should be used to get a complete picture. As a writer who is probably trying to get his own theories and ideas out, Jung perhaps, just perhaps, added that in so he did not necessarily reject Freud's ideas (and therefore cause the body of psychologists to think he was uneducated or mad for rejecting the well-praised Freud).
Friday, February 8, 2008
Disciple
I have finished Freud in the interim and have now moved onto another classic psychoanalyst, one of Freud's own correspondents, Carl Gustav Jung (C.G. Jung or just plain ol' Jung). The book is simply, Dreams by C.G. Jung. It is a much shorter text than Freud but should not be considered inferior to Freud's. Jung has done an amazing amount of work to compile this book, "For many years I have carefully analysed [sic] about 2,000 dreams per annum, thus I have acquired a certain experience in this matter" (Jung, Dreams v).
I have not read very much of Jung yet, but at my point in the book, all Jung has done was introduce Freud and most of his ideas. Among them are dream-material and the censorship of that material in dreams through symbolism and the like. He also goes onto the idea of wish fulfillment. The overview Jung provides is very concise and isn't bloated with the various examples that Freud had in his book. Sure, Jung did not want to copy Freud entirely, but it's interesting to note that Jung, so far, has been able to make major points in such a short span of text.
Jung has also touched upon numbers, which I found quite ridiculous in Freud's text (everything he did to manipulate the numbers seemed random and spontaneous). Jung, on the other hand, is a little clearer on the topic of numbers. He openly admits that analyzing numbers can go too far, "It is difficult to say where the borderline of play [with number analysis] begins" i.e: he acknowledges that he, himself is not sure that his analyses are not out of scope or wildly illogical (Jung 17).
So far, I'm taking a liking to Jung (well...more than Freud...Jung is still rather difficult to read) since he has been concise so far and hasn't been extravagant with his examples.
I have not read very much of Jung yet, but at my point in the book, all Jung has done was introduce Freud and most of his ideas. Among them are dream-material and the censorship of that material in dreams through symbolism and the like. He also goes onto the idea of wish fulfillment. The overview Jung provides is very concise and isn't bloated with the various examples that Freud had in his book. Sure, Jung did not want to copy Freud entirely, but it's interesting to note that Jung, so far, has been able to make major points in such a short span of text.
Jung has also touched upon numbers, which I found quite ridiculous in Freud's text (everything he did to manipulate the numbers seemed random and spontaneous). Jung, on the other hand, is a little clearer on the topic of numbers. He openly admits that analyzing numbers can go too far, "It is difficult to say where the borderline of play [with number analysis] begins" i.e: he acknowledges that he, himself is not sure that his analyses are not out of scope or wildly illogical (Jung 17).
So far, I'm taking a liking to Jung (well...more than Freud...Jung is still rather difficult to read) since he has been concise so far and hasn't been extravagant with his examples.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)