Analyzing the common sense of dreaming
We know that everyone dreams at one time or another, for what is true for one member of the species is true of all. No one can know what someone else dreams, and even our own dreams are less than clear and often forgotten. I propose that this otherwise subjective matter be analyzed by reference to what can be easily verified and correlated with existing knowledge.
The field of dreams, so to speak, is dominated by two strongly conflicting groups: the physiologists and the psychologists. The first sees the center of dreams in the brain, and especially neurons. While this may well be accurate, it begs the question of why a capacity for dreaming is located there. Still, it is wise to consider physiological factors, for man has a body as well as a soul.
The psychologists, influenced most by Sigmund Freud, find the explanation for dreaming in the subconscious part of the human psyche. The keys to many mysteries are said to be lurking in the interpretation of dreams, especially recurring ones, but also ones that penetrate to what is fundamental about human beings, which Freud was famous for saying was sexuality. Again, this has something to recommend it, for there is an inwardness to human beings which cannot be reduced to material factors.
Let’s consider the matter from the physiological point of view first, not least because that is more easily confirmed by objective, as opposed to subjective, evidence. The human body is capable of energetic exertions, physical and mental, but it regularly needs rest. We all get, and certainly need, whether we get it or not, several hours of sleep every day. But sleep is not death, not only because we are breathing, but because other bodily functions continue as well.
In sleep, we close our eyes and slip into unconsciousness. But we can still hear, feel and smell, however attenuated those senses may be while asleep. Taste is obviously less likely, but we have memory of that and the other sensations. The point is, we may be asleep but our senses are not entirely shut down.
To the extent our senses are functioning in sleep, our brains receive, however, dimly, their crude information. While our eyes are shut, we are far less alert than blind persons, who can actually make up for their infirmity by reliance on the remaining fully functioning senses. But our senses are dulled in sleep, so they function very poorly in those circumstances.
These dim perceptions are perhaps best described as crude sensations, for in sleep we may become aware that we are hot or cold, comfortable or uncomfortable, covered or uncovered, experiencing indigestion and so on. Obviously, that is not much to go on, but that’s about it.
My own experience with dreaming, especially nightmares, is that unpleasant physical conditions are a contributing cause. That is, one is more likely to have nightmares if one feels unpleasant sensations. By the same reasoning, pleasant circumstances, or feelings that remind one of pleasant moments, contribute to more pleasant dreams.
Given the low-level character of these physical sensations, meaning the meager information content, the mind does not have much to work with. Consequently, as we all can attest, dreams often make no sense. The mind is essentially jumping to conclusions, which is what it does when it has very little to go on. There is no waking mind to check this tendency.
However much we may enjoy our dreams, or are overwhelmed by them, as in nightmares, they are no match for being awake. The sleeping person is literally blind and otherwise dulled in his sensory perception. Dreams are interesting but cannot justifiably be regarded as a source of knowledge superior to everyday sense perception.
For centuries, human beings have credited dreams for all sorts of alleged insights into matters both human and divine, but philosophers have understandably debunked, and certainly doubted, these exalted claims. Better to trust one’s waking moments than dreams.
Yet Freudians and their ilk come close to attributing such significance to dreams. While they do not found any religions or other mass movements, they believe they can divine an individual’s history in dreams, and thereby unlock the secrets of that person’s being.
Recently, I saw the Hitchcock film “Marnie,” in which a young woman of that name played by Tippie Hedren is enabled by her remarkable husband, played by Sean Connery, to unlock the secrets of her past from both her dreams and her flashbacks while awake. This is brutal but life transforming, and perhaps there are many secrets buried in the subconscious.
But the problem with dream interpretation, particularly as it is linked with the subconscious, is verification. Only the person who is dreaming knows, and obviously doesn’t know much, about the content of the dreams. More to the point, only that person can verify the dream. We all know we dream and we all know we have inwardness. But to lift dreaming to the status of mystery solving is a questionable enterprise.
Dreaming is neither more nor less a human experience, which is underrated by physiologists and overrated by psychologists. Let the rest of us just try to get a good night’s sleep and hope for pleasant dreams.
ABOUT THE WRITER
Richard Reeb taught political science, philosophy and journalism at Barstow College from 1970 to 2003. He is the author of “Taking Journalism Seriously: ‘Objectivity’ as a Partisan Cause” (University Press of America, 1999). He can be contacted at rhreeb@verizon.net.
