[to index]

Interpretation, Unconscious, the Message of the Dream - three dream killing concepts



The interpretation of dreams is not experiential understanding of dreams, but an artificial middle layer; preformatted intellectual framework between the dream and the dreamer, with the help of which our conscious self tries to understand dreams. Whatever the conceptual system may be, it is a Procrustean bed, too short to contain the richness of dreams, or too long to put in something that is not there.


Among the most typical building blocks for intellectual frameworks about the human psyche is the concept of unconscious, which, according to layman psychology, is commonly seen to be an almost independent, autonomous creature with its own will and reasoning capacity, separated from the consciousness. It is seen capable of manipulating dreams for its own purposes, censoring the dangerous impulses by masquerading the message of the dream.


Another common building block of predefined assumptions is the dream itself. It is - like the 'unconscious'-concept - generally considered as an autonomous entity which is filtering, preparing, and projecting the variations of dreamer's mental status, its purpose being to mediate messages to the dreamer.


These kinds of objectifications are efforts to translate everything into the language of our day consciousness, which is implicitly assumed to be the most real, most objective state of mind. This type of translation is converting what is into something else what it is not, making shadows of interpretation more real than the phenomena casting those shadows. As Susan Sontag put it: "...the work of art is stripped of its sensuous life and reduced to a bare statement .... denying the radical potential of the original".


The clarity of this type of interpretations is a pruned clarity; everything not matching into the interpretation is cut away like it didn't exist at all. The sense of clarity of the interpretation derives from the perfect match with the theory, not with the dream. We may think we have understood the messages of dreams, seeing in fact only our own day consciousness projections and conceptual systems, not the true nature of dreams.


Adjusting dreams to theories is easily misinterpreted as insight by those who are seeking the intellectual clarity for their lives without noticing how high price they pay for this kind of 'insight'; the losing of the immediate experience of the endlessness of life. We've been conditioned by our culture to appreciate this kind of intellectual unambiguities so much, that we do not even notice what we are losing. How could we be sorry for losing the incorruptible core of human beings in all its indefinableness when we usually haven't even found it. Our day consciousness builds such concepts and theories, which do not dethrone our rational side from its illusionary autonomic position, from feeling of mastery of the reality, from proclaiming its own way of perceiving the world as a most right and real one.




... Day consciousness this and day consciousness that.... isn't this one form of objectification, too, now only day consciousness instead of unconscious?


Yes. I am developing concepts of deconceptualization, words against words. Words alone cannot break the mirror hall of polished theories which do not conflict with itself, that's why they have nothing to do with reality. Like Einstein puts it regarding mathematics: As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality". All these concepts are only shadows of the ever-present I (or self or whatever you want to call it), which is totally unknown.


A human being who does not yet know that he does not know, needs to stabilize the illusion of known reality by this kind of definitions like "messages of dreams" which are manipulated by the "unconscious". He clings to dream dictionaries and interpretation systems. It is like we'd make paintings from the immediate, nonconceptionally experienced beautiful scene, and after that arguing which of those paintings; those forgeries of nature is the most real nature.  It is like leaving the source of the river and traveling downstream hoping to find the real origin from its effects, not from the origin, the spring itself - whose true nature is seen only without any a priori assumptions of its true nature.





Markku Siivola