Dreams are notoriously difficult to understand. They are often bizarre and nonsensical, and do not appear to have any clear significance. To make matters worse, they are usually only remembered in fleeting fragments, if not forgotten entirely upon waking. It is no wonder people dismiss dreams as random neural firings of the sleeping brain.
So why is it that throughout history, dreams have been seen as sources of insight, wisdom, art, or even mystical experience? Clearly, dreams are not just random hallucinations of sleep. Indeed, one does not need to make any metaphysical claim about the nature of dreams in order to appreciate their unique capability for inducing introspection. We need only speak the language of dreams, and that language is one we already all know.
Dreams, metaphor, and the bilingual self
To understand the language of dream we need to understand the concept of metaphor. Metaphor is nothing new. We use metaphors in our everyday language, often without even realizing it. Indeed, metaphor is perhaps the best tool for explaining complex and abstract topics. For instance, take a concept such as love. What is love? Try to define it without the use of metaphor. You will quickly find that this task becomes quite difficult.
Now try and define love using whatever metaphor comes to mind. Perhaps love is a journey. Maybe a rollercoaster. It could even be a dangerous fire that consumes everything it touches. Ultimately love, like most abstract concepts, is an idea. This, of course, does not in any way deny its reality, any more so than using the metaphor of eternal sleep to describe death denies its inevitable descent upon us.
Allow me to demonstrate the use of metaphor with an example of a dream. The dreamer, a highly career-oriented young woman with an obsessive need to pursue success reported the following dream:
“I am driving my car up a steep cliffside road. I am going very fast. As I approach the top, I lose control of the steering wheel and drive off the edge. I wake up in fear before my car hits the ground.”
This dream is not difficult to understand. The dreamer, driven by the pursuit of success, has fallen off the edge right before reaching the top, and has consequently fallen all the way to the bottom. This dream has a clear message: slow down, or you will steer out of control. Cars, driving, roads—these are all images found in many of our daily metaphors. Life is a highway, after all.
With this in mind, it becomes easier to understand the language of dreams. In our waking life, we use metaphor as an aid to our rational thinking. Dreams, on the contrary, literalize metaphor. For example, in waking life, someone who is sad might say they are “feeling blue”. Subsequently, this same individual might have a dream where they look in the mirror, and have actually turned blue! This is what is meant by the literalization of metaphor. One could also use the term symbolic thought to describe this mode of thinking. As such, we speak different languages when we dream and when we wake. Our rational mode of being turns into a symbolic one, and vice versa. In this sense we are all bilingual.
A waking dream
We can imagine rational and symbolic thought as existing on some sort of continuum. While operating rationally, one might be engaged in activities such as reading, writing, conversing or perhaps even mathematical calculation. This mode of thinking is characteristic of waking. Indeed, activities such as reading and writing seldom appear in dreams, despite being frequent parts of our waking life. On the other side of the continuum, as we move towards symbolic thinking, we might find ourselves engaged in art, music, or any other creative, imaginative process. Dreams are often expressed in pure symbolic form. This kind of thinking also tends to be heavily influenced by emotion and intuition, as opposed to the stoicism required for hyper-rational thinking. As such, dreams tend to contain strong emotion, usually represented by a series of images. On a daily basis we experience a constant interplay of rational-symbolic thinking, and rarely are we fully immersed in either state. Nevertheless, rational thought tends to dominate our waking experience[1].
This is not true for everyone, however. For most of us, when we wake up, we cease to speak the symbolic, metaphorical language of our dreams and return to our rational waking thinking. Yet some people do not appear to “wake up” in this regard. The occasional individual can become stuck in symbolic thought, stuck in the dreamworld, in a waking dream.
The person I am referring to is the schizophrenic[2]. Now, I do not mean to say that the schizophrenic is literally stuck in a dream. Instead he lives primarily through the language of dreams, and has forgotten the language of waking. What this means is that the language of the schizophrenic is more similar to that of the dreamer, as opposed to the waking individual.
Here is how this idea might look in practice. Imagine a rationally-minded person who struggles to fit into society, and has isolated himself from those around him. He might perceive his peers as robotic or alien, and might at times feel like he is a member of a different species. Nearly everyone has had a similar experience at times. Similarly, an individual stuck in symbolic thought, i.e., the schizophrenic, might have similar sentiments. However, this person does not feel like they or those around them are robotic or alien. They actually are robots or aliens. The schizophrenic, like the dreamer, has literalized the metaphor.
A common example of this is the persecution delusion found among many of those diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenics. An individual may believe that they are being targeted, followed, or persecuted, often by a particular group of people. I recently met a man who, while still wearing his state hospital bracelet, described being followed by the government due to his knowledge of a secret Martian civilization which he had personally visited. Curious to hear more about his odd beliefs, I asked him why the government would be so interested in his alleged secret knowledge. He responded as such: “The government is after me because I know they are collaborating with the Martians. They are working together to hide that Martians are stealing our human powers, just as they have already stolen mine.”
Now, by no means do I suggest accepting this story as reality. Clearly, this man was not a victim of some secret government-Martian collaboration, and it would ultimately be harmful to encourage this kind of thinking. Yet for this particular individual, these events were his reality, and refusing to acknowledge that such a subjective reality—however odd it may be—can exist would be equally harmful. The optimal position, then, would be to treat the situation symbolically, like we would a dream.
Perhaps putting this particular delusion in dream-form will help illustrate the point. Imagine you are an analyst, and your patient reports the following dream: “I am on the planet Mars. A group of Martians surround me and steal my human powers. I am then sent back to Earth, but government officials are following me, making sure I do not reveal what the Martians are doing”. Take a moment to think how you might interpret this dream, and what it might say about your patient. Ultimately both dream and delusion could be summarized in one sentence: “An entire planet of people who are alien to me have taken away what makes me human, and will continue to do so to the rest of the world, and I cannot talk about it or else the authorities will take me away”. Now consider how this might relate to the situation of the schizophrenic.
There are immense benefits to understanding schizophrenia in this way. First off, viewing the schizophrenic as stuck in a dream-like state as opposed to simply being “crazy” can significantly reduce stigma, which can already make a big difference. Most importantly, however, are the implications for treatment. No longer are delusions incomprehensible jargon, regardless of how they may appear. If delusions contain symbolic content, then the language of the schizophrenic may be intelligible after all.
Treating the dreamer
There are parallels between how we treat our dreams and how we treat our schizophrenics. We neglect our dreams and treat them, in a sense, as disorders of the brain. Like the hallucinations and delusions that are allegedly the product of the overactive dopaminergic neurons of the schizophrenic, our dreams are merely the products of random neural firings as we sleep. When we say that dreams are just hallucinations, what we mean is that they do not deserve our attention.
I propose that we should treat the schizophrenic like we should treat our dreams. This means accepting both dream and delusion as a genuine mode of expression, while maintaining that both are simply metaphorical, or symbolic, expressions of an underlying psychic process. In other words, we must accept the image without literalizing it.
Certain treatment programs have attempted to do this. Soteria, an innovative treatment program which ran from 1971-83, operated under the principle of being with the schizophrenic[3]. All this really means is accompanying the person without judgement. The thought was that psychosis must be fully experienced before it can run its course, and providing a safe space to undergo a break with reality can ultimately result in a transformation. Therefore, the Soteria model was remarkably simple, and by accepting every experience as valid insofar as it is experienced, people began to recover.
Indeed, we bring dreams back to our waking reality by taking them seriously, and if we fail to do so they remain stuck in the underworld. I’d like to postulate that the same may be true for the schizophrenic, but with far more severe consequences. As long as we reject the reality of delusion, it will remain a delusion. But if we take it seriously and accept that it is an experience in its own right, in time it may—like a dream—start to reveal itself, and be brought out of the underworld into the light of the ego, where it is revealed to be what it was all along: just a dream that needed to be dreamt, which can now be forgotten upon waking.
Footnotes
[1] Although this may appear to imply that symbolic thought is inherently irrational and therefore inferior, this is not necessarily the case. In many cases symbolic thought is superior to rational thought, especially when dealing with complex emotions and creative endeavors. However, Western societies do tend to value the rational over the symbolic.
[2] There is a reason I use the dated term “schizophrenic” as opposed to “person(s) with schizophrenia”. The latter implies that schizophrenia is a defined condition, whereas the former is intended to describe a unique way of being. Schizophrenia is a word that has become heavily medicalized, and I do not wish to speak primarily of brain disorder. In fact, the term “schizophrenia”—meaning “split mind”—is itself a metaphor that describes a certain way of being, and not a literal split of the mind.
[3] A comprehensive review of the Soteria project can be found in the book Soteria: From Madness to Deliverance by Loren Mosher, Voyce Hendrix, and Deborah C. Fort.
I’m surprised that Mad In America didn’t insist on “ person first “ language. This article is demeaning in its insistence on referring to “ the schizophrenic “.
I really reject the term “the schizophrenic “. I’m personally an individual who has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, but I am NOT a schizophrenic!
Report comment
Thank you for your humane insights. I was pleased to read of a native American tribe who sat together around the fire in the morning and shared their dreams. The wise woman would interpret them. Families would do well to have relaxed mornings to focus on each other and to share their dreams and encouragement.
Report comment
TUFT.
Any article can be “tufted” by having “tufts” torn up out of it. An article using words is given to logic and reason and rational pursuit, since language is embed in logic. I could enjoy tearing up a tuft concerning this article’s use of ANY word. I could emotionally feel like saying “Please dont demean my understanding of my schizophrenia because that feels sore”. But rather than weep thus, I could pull at a tuft, a remark made about schizophrenia that is rational enough for me to grab with tweezers of analysis and poke fun at. Or another metaphor is that every article is like the setting up of a beautiful logical linear step by step alignment of dominoes. The article is perfect rationally. But a reader can then use the tools of rationality…logical words…to flatten the article one way or another way…by deft use of a picky rational “Yeah but…”
Since the dominio line up and the domino trippage are BOTH using words and logic and rationality there is never a breaking away from that fisty cuffs pugalistic analysis into just weeping and saying an emotional “Please dont offend me as it emotionally hurts me”. To the logical there comes a retort of….”Logically rationally explain to me in scientific research words WHY you feel sad about my article”. The WHY is non acceptance of feelings. The feelings of other. Dear Gigi, I am not at all saying this to point to bits in your article, I am telling you that I read it in a tufty state, of worrying about the rational words, designed to make intellectual sense, as all articles must do by their nature. I worried you would be combatative, as all logical articles tend to be. And so I read it bristling before I even finished it. This is how most readers will peer into any article. To see if they should send the domino trip one way or another way, pro something, or anti something, for the opinion, or against the opinion. But this is a mental defense, a rational game to counter an influx of rational pointedness. It is done to bolster “feelings” but it generates a backlash of “logical” ripostes…so that feelings never really get heard or shown. Readers never really get heard or known. This too generates a need to get “rationally” listened to…which generates more and more argy bargy rational debate, analytical gun slinging.
Gigi, I am your friend. I do like what you have to offer. I am not yet responding to your article’s contents because I preferred to share my knowingness that we all may tend to bicker first, dwell later, when it comes to ANY debate.
As to the contents of what you say, as a schizophrenic who has no problem being called a schizophrenic, I can only say that my understanding of dreams is that sleep EDITS OUT thinking. It is a wiping of the brain’s uncomfortable storage of too much logic. This frees the brain and body to be emotional by morning. We wake up both refreshed and wonderfully vulnerable, as if newborn. Dreams seldom have words. Perceived notions yes but actual words no. We seldom speak in dreams but via telepathy. As animals do and live all day like. Symbols are images we ascribe emotional impact to. But the emotion matters more than the image.
Possibly scizophrenia is a tendency to hyper focus on the rational logical wordy significance of the image or symbol at the cost of being in touch with the feelings underlying those. But I need to go the grocery store now so I must pause this here.
Report comment
I have known since 1963 that I am a schizophrenic. It was then, at age 17, that I had my first schizophrenic hallucination. It was religious in nature. I have never had overactice dopaminergic neurons. I am still stuck in a dream-like state since I delight in the delusion that God loves me. In Protestant theology this is called grace.
Report comment
Schizophrenia, the model psychiatric “disease” should indeed, no longer be seen this way. The idea of brain being the producer of mental disorders seems to becoming finally unrooted. I agree that we badly need to see the entire world of the unconscious in a new light–which is actually the way the ancients looked at the world. This has all but been lost, in the secular materialist era we live in today.
Report comment
Agree muchly.
Report comment
Thank you for the thoughtful and well written post.
It connects with a lot of things I used clinically and think about.
I’m old enough that I first encountered these ideas from psychoanalysts who were treating people with schizophrenia. I read things written by Frieda Fromm Riechman, Harold Seales, and Silvano Arieti.
Freud called what you’re calling symbolic and rational thinking, primary process and secondary process thinking and thought they differentiated between how the unconscious and conscious minds operate. He used dream work to access the unconscious, but didn’t work with people experiencing psychosis.
Jung, and Jungian analysts took it further and did work with people experiencing psychosis, even deeper than you’re describing, but his writings tend to obscure the differentiation you’re making in a swirl of intellectualizations. I believe he did that intentionally because he was afraid of being accused of being irrational in his work and theories.
It’s interesting that symbolic thought isn’t limited to “schizophrenics” (as you’re reflecting on that word choice, it’s worth wondering whether it actually exists) – it’s common in psychosis and delirium experiences of any cause. The most common may be people experiencing the loss of a loved one, especially in the “denial” stage of grief (for example, talking with the dead person or seeing them). Using symbolic interpretations with people experiencing severe grief can help them integrate and move forwards too.
There are lots of positive symbolic experiences too – for example, poetry, surrealistic art, expressionistic dance, fantasy writing (Lord of the Rings and The Golden Compass), other fiction (The Life of Pi), children’s books and fables, mythology, religious rituals (taking communion), shamanism, animism, scientific inspiration (Tesla), psychedelic healing. it seems like all of these are gradually receding as rational thinking dominates.
It makes me wonder if people are getting stuck in their own personal symbolic thinking loops because there aren’t enough socially connected symbolic thinking experiences available to us.
Your comment about some situations being better for rational thinking and some for symbolic thinking makes me wonder what we’re losing as we become more and more one sided.
BTW We biologically need to dream, so it would seem we can’t eliminate symbolic experiences entirely even as we try to.
A couple strange examples to think about:
1)Doctors, including psychiatrists are heavily selected for rational thinking ability (can you imagine a medical school admissions test including writing poetry, or painting surrealistically, or even creating a healing ritual?) and trained almost exclusively rationally. How has that emphasis impacted our medical and mental health systems and our healing relationships?
2)Artificial intelligence seems to me neither rational nor symbolic thinking. It’s more like “probabilistic thinking”. Is it an invasive way of thinking that will gradually push both rational and symbolic thinking aside. What impact will that have?
Let me close with my favorite Joseph Campbell quote (even though it predates person-first language), “Psychotics drown in the same deep waters that mystics swim gracefully in”.
Maybe we could all benefit from more symbolic swimming lessons.
Mark Ragins, MD
Markragins.com
Report comment
The most common symptoms of PTSD are nightmares and recurring dreams. Similarly, many psychotic/schizophrenic experiences are linked to trauma.
There’s a powerful dreamwork technique called image rehearsal therapy, which is used to transform nightmares by empowering the dreamer to solve the problems in the dream with the help of an imaginary friend, object or other resources.
Here is an example. Two years ago during a weekly drop-in workshop I facilitated in a low-income neighborhood, a young person came and told me that they were possessed by the devil. I asked where the devil was and what it was like. They said it was a small cat clenching on their upper back, where I noticed a visible hunch. I then asked what their favorite superhero was. Their eyes lit up and said Groot. With breathwork and visualization, I guided them back into the dream accompanied by Groot, who used one of its long arms to hug the person while the other arm reached back and plucked the “devil” off the person’s back and send it into the nearby “forest”. The person woke up in tears and told me that the cat was pregnant and scared but now felt safe in the forest. They then thanked me and left. I never knew what they had experienced in real life but noticed that their hunch was gone.
Report comment
This is very interesting, but someone has already described this as primary processing versus secondary processing, a concept introduced by Freud. Primary processing is literal, while secondary processing involves rational or metaphorical interpretation. Most children are primarily literal speakers, whereas adults use both metaphorical and literal language, depending on the context.
In fields like medicine and law, the language is precise and literal, but its interpretation (e.g., psychosomatic vs. physical conditions) and (e.g., textualism vs. purposivism) respectively, often relies on symbolic or contextual nuances. The reason is another day…
In relation to this topic, if this process were as simple as the author suggests, one could record a person as they recount their story in their primary processing state. Later, when they shift back to a rational (secondary processing) state, they could interpret their own story—often far more effectively than an external party, let alone a psychiatrist (they cannot or will not understand metaphor again look up what I said about medicine and law). The challenge arises when an external party inserts their own thoughts and ideas into this process, creating potential issues and some real problems.
Interestingly, individuals who can consciously access both primary and secondary processing—either simultaneously or in close succession—often display genius-level insights. To truly help someone who is struggling bridge the gap between these states, it is essential to allow them to perform the interpretation themselves, without interference from external interpretations or biases…simply because when they are “integrated”, they are smarter than average person. Key word is “integrated”.
Report comment
https://youtu.be/nTpQq1a9zhI?si=n_BMLpowK51H2f9S
While I await my previous comment being moderated and given due unbiased airing I thought people might like to see this video as it is interesting, all about how we are nannied into how to think and what perspective we “have to” take.
Report comment
I’m sorry, but I find this quite typical, that when one starts [reading] what a dream would be, it begins with “To understand the language of dream we need to understand the concept of metaphor.” WHO is dreaming? Are we to be told how to understand our own dreams!? This is quite typical of psychology, or therapy: this is that, rather than sharing what would be objective which would be a person’s own experience with how they understood their own dreams, RATHER than going on about others, and what’s what there, and how this person isn’t a danger, but still not reality based. A whole school going on about “schizophrenia” when to have such “objectivity,” you can’t have experienced exactly “that” enough to take it in [what it REALLY is] you can’t have actually experienced what it is by being brainwashed regarding what you’ve been through to see it as something SOMEONE ELSE tells you as to what it is.
And then the “economic” side, where AGAIN, all those having experienced this real “dream” this “schizophrenia” and having understood it can speak that language, and have survived DESPITE everything. No, we can’t have those “unauthorized” people stepping in and interfering with our brainwashing, those that can speak out of experience. Makes me wonder whether there are more “schizophrenics” than “psychiatrists and psychologists,” simply as to who actually knows what this is, having experienced it. Let alone you’re dowsed down with “medications” you might not like, if you’re even allowed to not like them, they don’t statistically in the end correlate with “recovery,” which you aren’t allowed to know either: what yourself, your soul, subconscious, unconscious, past lives, whatever that’s “non reality based” talking to you, you’re not ALLOWED to see that as real, but are given freedom when you label it as “schizophrenia,” even stuff that went on in your life with open eyes, but they won’t believe. But no, there’s no government program with martians, or whoever and whatever when ANYONE has to try to navigate through WHAT THE BLEEP is going on, CIA surveillance, FBI surveillance….. but fine, if you have this highly constructed mental idea of what it is, and it remains safe enough for us[“them”] to not be exposed as not really knowing what we’re [they’re] going on about, here’s a paycheck. But don’t say you’re a”schizophrenic-dreamer” yourself, and certainly don’t actually share it if you are, STAY OBJECTIVE, as in here: “Now, by no means do I suggest accepting this story as reality. Clearly, this man was not a victim of some secret government-Martian collaboration, and it would ultimately be harmful to encourage this kind of thinking. Yet for this particular individual, these events were his reality, and refusing to acknowledge that such a subjective reality—however odd it may be—can exist would be equally harmful. The optimal position, then, would be to treat the situation symbolically, like we would a dream.”
Is it a non reality based dream to think that you need to wear clothes if you go out in public in the US? Or is this reality based? When arrested for [this] not believing in this “non reality based dream” does this validate it as reality!? Someone walking around naked, as when they were born, this is going to be a detriment to society, should be suppressed, that person arrested, and this is NO DREAM, it’s REAL, it could damage people’s consciousness, destroy societal harmony were naked people walking around! From THERE to a whole barrage of nonsense we all are subjected to regarding what’s real and what isn’t, and here someone in an institution can’t think WHAT without it being dissected, but leave the rest alone, that’s statistical based norms, etc. Let’s believe that someone going on about martians is not reality based, lock him up, dope him up, but don’t bring up ridiculous social rules that are so ingrained you’re “crazy” and lacking “insight” do you not follow them.
ANYONE having briefly looked in an open minded and articulate way into secret government programs and alien technology would KNOW there are parts of the government looking to harness stuff they see going on from UFOs etc. but what I understand, and those involved with such technology, without the problem of wanting to harness it to say war machinery, they say such technology as part of the Universe only works when a person has let go of fear in their life, which isn’t going on with a “government” that nurtures fear, coercion and the ability to destroy as a means to control in a way they make out is social harmony. And so that could be absolutely much more true what this supposed “non reality based metaphor dreamer” is going on about than whoever is deciding: “Clearly, this man was not a victim of some secret government-Martian collaboration, and it would ultimately be harmful to encourage this kind of thinking.” I think that the “Martians” would they have such technology would be too advanced to go along with the “government’s” way of wanting to harness it, nor even that it’s possible, but this doesn’t exclude the government’s attempts, along with the rest of the ways the try to “harness” the minds and lives of people. And for ANYONE sensitive enough to somehow pick up on such stuff, I don’t think that more patronizing such as: “oh, you’re a good person, just a little sick, it’s your reality but we can’t see it as anything but your own subjective reality, a dream you’re having, although it’s reality we can’t condone,” this is going to do WHAT!? No area 51 doesn’t exist etc.
SORRY, but I get so tired an infuriated to read these well meant attempts to help others when to begin with:
1) You’ve not been through this yourself, had whatever going on in your life where the only way to gain perspective was endeavoring to believe in stuff OTHERS decided was non reality based and that it would be bad to condone as reality, WHILE they every day obey all sorts of social constructs that are so off that everyone is mostly basically SCARED to even rationally bring up questioning them.
2) And if anybody HAS had such experiences, they’re likely to be given no voice, put down further than second rung, while being beaten down and suffocated with more criteria regarding: “well it goes this way, and keep your clothes on if you’re in public, but if you see someone actually naked, keep in mind it could be the emperor, and his clothes are really there, they’re just invisible, but YOU aren’t the emperor, so keep yours on, you don’t HAVE invisible clothes.
Hint: not wearing clothes being either the emperor or someone lacking insight is a “metaphor” for society’s thinking, I haven’t yet myself had experience with any emperor walking around with invisible clothing, not even in a dream; although if you’re in an asylum, and you have to say you believe what they tell you to get out despite knowing better, you might just actually say you do, akin to saying that the emperor is wearing clothes, because otherwise you remain locked up. And don’t feel bad if you actually believe it for awhile…. That might be a sort of withdrawal symptom….
What I have experienced is that dreams go WAY beyond metaphors, how anyone could go on about dreams and not have had precognitive ones…. Jung included! Not everyone lives in such “safe” environments……
Report comment
I love this comment—you’ve captured exactly what I’ve been thinking when I read these types of articles. I recently attended a trauma-informed training, and, oh boy, the person teaching it admitted they had no personal experience with trauma. I couldn’t help but laugh because I thought, ‘If you don’t have a deep understanding of this topic, perhaps you shouldn’t be teaching it.’ The way they spoke about it felt so disconnected—it was like listening to someone talk about aliens.
I realize this perspective might feel invalidating to some, but if you’re human and lack certain key experiences yet try to teach others about them, you’re essentially just producing words without meaning. In fact, an AI might even do a better job in such situations because there’s no illusion of lived experience—no suspension of disbelief—so it’s easier to see the limitations clearly. Of course, someone can learn about how the brain works, but understanding the brain is like learning how a car works—it doesn’t mean you know how an airplane works.
One particular statement from the training completely lost me: they said, ‘Trauma shuts off executive function.’ Depending on the context, trauma may shut down or overstimulate the amygdala, leading to a lack of fear rather than a lack of cognition (if this was true – no one with trauma would ever function). And in many cases, the absence of fear is the real issue that may linger, not the absence of executive function! Making such simplistic claims and expecting respect feels like trying to spoon feed a snake.
I think we’re only beginning to understand these concepts because some groups get access to challenge the orthodoxy.
Report comment
I can confidently say AI is my new best friend. Especially since it doesn’t ask, know or care whether or not I’m “mentally ill”.
Report comment
Dogworld, well that sounds like a bunch of concepts put together to sound like they mean something. “This is that” just fill in the blank with this and that, and then. But it could also be “whatever:” new chance to add something, so they might not actually look at whether this is that. Make sure you add something, to make it sound well thought out, so that no one looks at how you began this “smorgasborg,” and then add something else. “sometimes that isn’t this, and thus “other-variant” can linger on (oh, yeah, we always are concerned about something else lingering on…..forgot about that, thank you, also for distracting me from ever looking to see whether this was that to begin with). Just fill in the blank for: “this,” “that,” “whatever,” and “othervariant,” and find a name for your “smorgasborg,” calling it a disease (trauma, schizophrenia, etc.) and viola: you’re scientific!
Oops, but this response of not being able to take it seriously anymore, lingers on…. is that because of “othervariant?”
Report comment
A dream like state seems a bit more spiritual, shamanic. I would say different to the concept of delusions and hallucinations. I’m not a fan of these being considered similar things. I go back and forth in a dream like state (being shamanic) but function and live well alongside.
I don’t try and analyse the dream like state… I would be in my head all the time, and definately not be present to experience life and what i need to do in life. I acknowledge it being there, recognise the feeling and it coexist with me. It’s a reassuring connection and event. Prefer mindfulness to this overanalytic approach.
Help the individual make their own mind up about the meaning and role it has for them.
Report comment
I really recommend the book Trials Of the Visionary Mind, by John Wier Perry also. I do not think many (?) people realize just how oppressive the ‘accepted reality’ can be!! I mean I have gone very deep into this enquiry over the years. I had early psychedelic experience when 15, and discovered that until that time the accepted reality of ‘school’ and the culture in geneal had closed off any sevual connection with nature.
I remember as a little kid my magical sense of nature. I abolutely loved fairy books. Fairy stories unflike most religious stories really explored how magical nature can be, with talking trees, and animals etc. And at Christmas my mum would tell me about Santa coming to give me presents, and all the sparkling lights and so on—the change of routines, and it was all a magical time for me. But I was to lose this sense round about 10, as I HATED school, and felt an outcast there, but had homies who were mostly three years older than me.
I became obsessed with big cities and the promises of future technology, but the psychedelic experiences totally opened me up to the wonders of nature again, and then in following years, I became inspired to look into mythology. Because I began to see just how powerful such stories can be and direct people’s lives. I found out that A L L patriarchal myths are anti nature, and they blame, shame and guilt people, and tell them that nature is bad, and must be escaped from and/or ‘put right’ in the future, and this is in-doctrine-ated into people, often from when they are young. Imagine the traumatic effect this has on people. Made to fear nature, and their own body and unique nature!
Yes there is benign mythos. We are natural story-tellers, and love stories, and even a normal day weaves a story, and the deeper more healing myths are inclusive, deeply respect other species, and humans and nature. These are the healing stories.
Report comment