Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Sigmund Freud called the process of interpreting dreams the "royal road to the unconscious," and he considered the book under consideration his finest achievement. Much of Freud's work as a scientist has been superceded in the 120 years since the IOD was first published, but his work as a psychologist has had a lasting effect on western culture. (For example, I couldn't have accused Antigone and Kreon of egotism during the interim read if it weren't for Freud.)

Much has changed in the intervening century since Freud. We know much more about the brain and neurological processes and how and why we dream. Freud was first and foremost a scientist and a physician, as well as a follower of Darwin, and he is obviously trying to present his ideas with some rigor. As dreaming subjects we still have the same experience that Freud had, and that his patients had, and so I hope we can discreetly put aside modern science for now and look at the work from the perspective of the late 19th century.

The first part of the book is an overview of the scientific literature on dreams available to Freud in the late 1890s. It is rather long but it raises some key questions about dreams. Firstly, what is a dream? Where do dreams come from? Most importantly, I think, is the question of how the dreamer "chooses" the material for her dream. (Freud uses that term -- choice -- which I think is important.)

He discusses the somatic and "organic" stimuli associated with dreams, while leaving plenty of room for "psychical" stimuli, which he teases will solve the riddle of dreams. Is this the direction he is going? Does the material so far suggest that dreams are the royal road to the unconscious?

I didn't notice the use of the word "unconscious" in the text. What is its origin? My uni offers graduate work on The History of Consciousness. Freud must enjoy a prominent position in that curriculum. What might have been the scientific and social contect which was ripe for Freud's paradigm change?

I find the first part reads a bit like a dissertation project. He is constantly citing references and examples to nudge his ideas forward. I guess he had to do that. Maybe it's just me, but I find the plethora of citations and references unwieldy, excessive, and weigh the writing down.

Looking in the Index, I see that "unconscious" is referenced on page 397, 460-470 out of 471 pages. The whole book must be building the context for the theory of the unconscious!

I notice that the last section of the last part of the book is called "The Unconscious and Consciousness. Reality." From which I conclude that the royal road is a long one. But it looks like he eventually gets there. It will be interesting to observe the route.

Tamara wrote: "I find the first part reads a bit like a dissertation project. He is constantly citing references and examples to nudge his ideas forward. I guess he had to do that. Maybe it's just me, but I find ..."

So far it's a little dry. It reminds me of the way Aristotle starts his Physics and Metaphysics, with overviews of the traditional ways of thinking that he is about to depart from. It's a good way to outline the territory and present the phenomena he's addressing, but it's no way to sell books. The first edition of IOD was published in 600 copies and it took 8 years for them to sell out.

Thanks, Thomas.
I'm hanging in there because I'm curious to see how he's going to get to where he wants to go.

In this first part of the book, Freud is starting to build the case that dreams can be interpreted. His survey of earlier thought about dreams and, a related subject, the nature of sleep, is meant to show that so far no one has found a worthwhile approach.

The first step toward "dreams can be interpreted" seem to be that dreams are not externally generated.

Suzann wrote: "The first step toward "dreams can be interpreted" seem to be that dreams are not externally generated."

I think so. He's interested in what the psyche is doing, rather than the body. The psyche seems to act on its own, freely, when it dreams. So he asks questions like, What sorts of material does the psyche come up with for its dreams, and why is that material chosen? Are they composed of memories, and why are those memories chosen?" (my paraphrase) These questions turn inward to the psyche, away from the external, somatic world of the senses.

Thomas wrote: "Suzann wrote: "The first step toward "dreams can be interpreted" seem to be that dreams are not externally generated."

I think so. He's interested in what the psyche is doing, rather than the body..."

I may have misunderstood him, but I didn’t see him as dismissing external stimuli entirely.

He gave a whole bunch of examples and experiments of external stimuli as corresponding to part of the dream content as to be recognized as the source of the dream, for example, the sound of thunder as corresponding to a battle in a dream; a blanket slipping off at night may cause us to dream we are walking naked or falling into water; etc. He goes on to argue that the external stimuli influencing senses during sleep do not appear in the same form in the dream but are indistinct and manifested differently.

In other words, I don’t see him as saying it is an either/or proposition. I interpret him as saying external stimuli are a contributing factor in dreams—albeit a modest one—but they are not the only source.

That's the way I understood it as well. He lists four types of stimuli:
" external (objective) sensory stimuli, internal (subjective) sensory stimuli, internal (organic) somatic stimuli, and purely psychical sources of stimulus."

The first type is easiest to understand: a noise on the street gets incorporated into a dream somehow.

Internal subjective sensory stimuli are a little more dubious I think: "hynagogic hallucinations", retinal disturbances of some kind. I think of this as something like driving all day and then closing your eyes at night and still feeling like you're in the car looking at the road.

Internal organic somatic stimuli are created within the body of the dreamer. Muscular, gastric, sexual processes that occur when the person is sleeping are the sources of stimuli that get incorporated in the dream.

Psychical sources are the most interesting, and he says that eventually "an unexpected source of stimulus in the psyche" will solve the riddle of how dreams are formed. (End of section c.) I'm not sure what "psychical" stimuli are exactly, but they seem to be the exceptions: any kind of stimuli that doesn't fit into the first three categories is psychical. (It's important to note though that he thinks even these are stimuli have an organic basis, but the connection hasn't yet been discovered...yet. "But where in the present state of our knowledge, we cannot but regard the psychical as the end of the road, that is no reason for denying it.")

I'm going to guess that these purely psychical non-somatic sources is where he's headed, to "solve the riddle." (like Oedipus maybe?)

I was thinking of "external" as gods or other explanations rather than physical stimuli. Humans find ways to "rationalize" events, feelings, anything not understood. We like to identify a cause for the inexplicable. Seems like this is the biggest barrier to grasping Freud's radical new ideas.

It is possible that with the external, somatic, and psychic stimuli, Freud is setting up his "straw men" because he intends to show what dreams really mean and how every element can be hung on his scaffolding of the repressed contents of the unconscious.

Suzann wrote: "I was thinking of "external" as gods or other explanations rather than physical stimuli. Humans find ways to "rationalize" events, feelings, anything not understood. We like to identify a cause for..."

It's interesting that he doesn't reject divine explanations out of hand. He says the pietistic and mystical writers "do right to occupy the remains of the once extensive realm of the supernatural, as long as it has not been conquered by scientific explanation". What follows is a survey of the attempts made by the scientific community to replace the mystical theories.

His review of the science reveals that there are no general rules that allow him to analyse dream life. There are somatic stimuli that occur when someone is sleeping -- noises, cold, sensory disturbances, etc. -- and then there are psychical stimuli -- memories of waking life. Somehow these stimuli are associated with each other in dreams, but so far science has not been able to explain how or why that happens. Do these associations mean anything at all or are they just random nonsense?

Thomas wrote: "Suzann wrote: "I was thinking of "external" as gods or other explanations rather than physical stimuli. Humans find ways to "rationalize" events, feelings, anything not understood. We like to ident..."


Despite all these contradicting and diverse explanations, I think Freud is not going to just throw this discussion off as being just random nonsense as shown towards the end of this part 1 (e):
the efforts of all those investigating the dream seem to be based on the assumption that a characterization of the dream does exist, universally valid in its essential features, which would reconcile these contradictions.

With all these questions concerning dream and its interpretations, I wonder if Freud is going to ask why we, in our waking conscious state, apart from the possibility of the connection to psychiatric pathology or mystical relevances, try to find meaning or interpret dreams at all? Why do we try to find a connection between the logical conscious state and the unconscious dream state? Do we think that dreams would have an influence on our waking state or vice versa? If so, does it influence both the normal psyche and the pathological psyche of the awake state? I'm waiting to find out if he goes into those territories.

Susanna wrote: "Thomas wrote: "His review of the science reveals that there are no general rules that allow him to analyse dream life. .."

It's interesting that there still is no scientific way of analyzing dream..."

My gut tells me that this is because dreaming is a product of the psyche, simlar to art. There is no scientific way of analyzing art either. Even the analysis we do, like the analysis we do of literature in this group, is a kind of art. That doesn't mean that it's nonsense, but it's far from scientific.