mimefan599

It would probably end up that it pulls on your clothes and not your body so it would feel weird, rip your clothes, or not even effect you a negligable amount If they knocked the bugs out, I don't see why not.

Iv'e had plenty of lucid dreams. It seems like most dreams I can sort of take control, though that is probably only an illusion. It isn't really any more vivid, just more memorable. I think people confuse the two. It seems like Freud is most correct in his least extremes. He mostly gets on the right path and then just goes too far with the idea which certainly plagues all humankind without careful attention. I think that Jung does that also. He has great ideas about the collective unconscious but I fear he goes too far with it sometimes. I think Freud became too hell bent on sexual repression because he did cocaine and that sort of makes you obsessive to a certain idea. Aveedo1, did your class cover Jungian Theory (not just dreams) yet?

Dreams are case sensitive, so it could to someone who was not the dreamer make no sense while to the dreamer be sensible in some way. I'm just rethinking some of Freudian theory, I dont see evidence that says that they are incoherent. Perhaps that is why so many believe in the symbolic aspect of dreams

Nvm, found it. Domhoff does make interesting points. Now, im only 15, and I dont always have the opportunity to stay abreast of all research, but I think that Freudian dream theory should not be thrown away completely. Dumhoff says that there are dreams that fulfill desires. It does not say that it is merely nueral static. Dreams have been proven to be coherent extensions to waking thought. I thought that it was a good point when he said that, just as waking thought, dream content is sometimes fulfilling a wish, sometimes not. That, I believe, is why Freudian method should not be thrown away. So, I suppose that I largely stand corrected. I guess I should read a Dumhoff book sometime.

OK Aveeno, before I respond, give me a link to that Dumboff article. I can't find it.

Introspection, as I've always understood it, is reflective meditation.

Oh yeah, and when I said neurotransmitters, I meant to say firing nuerons, so my bad 1veedo.

Ok, first of all, your link is about 6 years old, so read this: http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug99/sc4.html You say :Well, maybe not for his dream theories (if we take your word for it w/o due citation), but repression is definitely the basis for the majority of his work. I am not defending "THe majority of his work," I am defending his dream theory (not all of it), so I do not understand why you would bring that up. Who has refuted the ego? (This isn't rhetorical, i would like to read the paper.) Social Proof? Freuds dream work as a rule cannot fall under "Social Proof" because it is an UNCONSCIOUS PROCESS. Social Proof is a fancy way of saying monkey see monkey do. You can't control what you dream about so how could external social pressures be a factor? That just makes no sense. And besides, when dreaming, there is no lack of knowledge of what to do as would be a prerequisite for social proof? Perhaps after reading the above article Freud's model won't seem to be such an unaccpeted model. Besides, if you look at the original post, and follow Freud's model, one could easily find the meaning of the dream. He wants to see that girl. That is the fulfilled wish! Most dreams are very simple to understand. And when you talk of the uneducated masses being the only people who talk about Freud is ridiculous. Most people completely misunderstand Freud, as you do. He is not as misunderstood as Jung, but Far more misunderstood than say Erik Erikson. The masses aren't talking about the id, ego, dream meanings, because Physchology is very misunderstood, but Freud is no exeption. Besides, most people, even the uneducated masses, believed that dreams were not emtional because the widespread theory certainly made it seem so, so instead of seaking for the uneducated masses and pushing Freud as their gospel, think about it for about five minutes and you'll find that what you said made no sense. So, yes, there is a reason why Herme3 would ask Why he would wish to see the girl, because recent studies have shown that dreams are very emotional, as Freud had thought. (Read the link). You act as though i am completely clinging to Freud when that is not reality, I can let go of something if it has been disproven, but Freud has not been disproven afaik, but I could be wrong and i would aprecaite an article a little more up to speed.

I know that alot of Frued's repression theories have been refuted but his dream work relies only a little on the repressions. Only about a chapter of Interpretation deals with childhood repressions. On that particular part I take a Jungian poit of view, but the point he was trying to make was that dreams expressed an either ignored wish or a wish that was painful to admit directly. I do not always back up Frued, mainly his dream work. Thoughts have been proved not to be as repressed as originally thought but that does not mean that there are not things that the ego will distort due to painful realities. That is what his dream work was based off of. The dream is a process that fulfills a wish for the unconsious. Because of the nature of the wish and how the ego cannot always handle it, it is distorted in order for the ego to handle it. Repressed emotions are just an extension of that, not the base. So no, Freud can no longer be taken word for word, but that doesnt compromise all of his work in any way. The integrity of his dream work is not compromised because what has been proven wrong, the major and extensive repressions, is not, as commonly thought, the basis for his theories.

It is Carl Jung, who was mentored by Frued, not the other way around. THe Iliad and the Oddysey were written by the same person, but that is a good point. THere are in theory common themes of our psyche called archetypes that couldnt have influenced each other.

What was he trying to say?

I doubt that the gym occurence had anything to do with the collective unconsious. I tend to believe that memories are malleable as Edtharan had said and deja vu is just your brain reshaping (or rather distorting for the Freudians) a previous image to such a degree that it arises extrene false familiarity. My bringing up the Collective Unconscios was just my suppport for that mode of thinking.

This is a very beautiful Jungian theory. According to Jung, there is a part of our psyche that is common to everyone but in different ways. This is called the Collective Unconscious that is responsible for insticnts, mythological motifs, common thought, common ideas, ect. The similar trails of thought that you refer to may very well be responsible for deja vu, but that is speculation and i will not divulge. I just wanted to thank you for bringing up such a beautiful idea into the local universe.

That's not exactly true. Dreams have been proven to be wish fulfillments in every sense. I know that it aids memory but that does not conflict with Fruedian theory. THe main points of Frued's INterpretation of Dreams was that a dream is a safty valve for the psyche in that it acts out any wish that the psyche may have unfulfilled. How does that not aid memory? To settle the lesser wishes of the psyche so that it may focus its energy on remembering things that are expected to be important to remeber. These two things do not conflict. Interpreting dreams is not mumbo jumbo in any way. It is important to have an understanding of what happens while asleep and what the psyche may want to tell the discriminating ego. It could be that he wants to boink that chick or that he feels he is following the wrong religion or whatever. It is only a thing of the past because we are growing out of the old psychology, and that is fine. We know see the mind as products of neurotransmitters, but that does not make what we have discovered in the past any less valuable to the understanding of our psyche, it just needs to be translated into todays terms and understand what they did not know in the past, not abandon it. And what do you mean Psychology is a much more respectable discipline now? Freud studied the mind. Is that not psychology? Just because it needs to be interpreted into todays knowledge does not make it any less valuable or any more outdated.

Why is social science not science? Is it not grounded in observation? Any type of psychology cannot be directly observed except of organic origin. That doesn't equate it's science to that of creationism.