[to index]

 August 1, 1984
Markku Siivola:

THE BEST THEORY OF DREAMS

(originally meant to be a chapter in Montague Ullman's book The Variety of Dream Experience (Continuum, New York, 1987),
but was considered too different from the rest of the articles)

Table of Contents

THE BEST THEORY OF DREAMS

Newton's dreams
Thou shalt be independent!
Once upon a time
Supervision and education
Dreams are dangerous
Personality and individuality
Subject and object
Loneliness is beyond blindness
Depressurization of suffering

THE ROOTS OF THE THEORIES

Unrealistic reality
Axioms everywhere
Time and theories
Some theories
The best theory

ART AND SCIENCE


THE BEST THEORY OF DREAMS

Death is believing - believing in dreams, religion, atheism, art, science, politics, nihilism, not-believing. Believing without knowing, without understanding. You say your knowledge is not only analytical, it is intuitive too? And your vast experience is a best proof of your view?

So they all say - and so do I.

How do I know which is true or false in those fantastic, disgusting, happy, frightful, lively, artistic dreams, surging all nights over me? Are dreams elimination of physiological garbage? Shallow remnants of day's activities? Is their etiology physical, psychological, spiritual? Are they reflections of waking state or vice versa? Do they contain completely autonomous sectors of life? Do they tell more about me or about the world, about my friends in my dream group, about my colleagues, my co-workers, my patients in my psychiatric hospital?

Newton's dreams

We may have participated in dream groups hundreds of hours, be very accustomed to listen to dreamers and dreams. We may have the feeling of mastery and control of dream groups. But our view of the dreams is false. Our view of dreams has become the cozy truth. Our very effective, beautiful, artistic visions of dreams and our influence on the dreamer is always wrong. - Or always right of course. We have seen one side of the truth. It is true, but false because it is not the whole truth. In physics and in life general we see Newtonially: practical truths which work sufficiently well inside the limits of our prejudices, our conventionalisms. These laws work beautifully as long as we are satisfied with only "practical" kind of motion, Newtonian practical motion. A stone (in German: ein Stein) thrown into the air is flying as calculated without having to know anything about Einstein.

But Newton's mechanical model is false. It is only an approximation of the bigger entity, of Einstein's relativity theory, which changes constants to variables, pulls away the rug under our hopes of certainty, fixed point, fixed theory, compulsion to drive limitlessness into limits. Copernicus, Kepler, Galilei, Newton, Einstein ... Whose turn is next to pull the rug away?

But why is an approximation not enough if it works? It works, but it loses innumerous flowing, ever-changing variables, because it sees them as constants. It is the observer himself who has - who i s - these constants which are frozen life, beliefs, attitudes, everything that is stagnated in the human being. The more constants the clearer and more explicit categories, easier classifications, easier adaptability for computers, easier science. This means still more isolation, violence against life, against dreams. The most clear systems, explanations, theories are one hundred per cent logical, but only in their own area. They are completely isolated from the endlessness of life. They are like black holes: no communication with the surroundings.

The flame of life casts an endless number of shadows of theories on the endless levels of intellect, emotion, personality, culture. They are reflecting the flame in their own fragmented way catching some glimpses of it, but not understanding their own position as a mediator for something which is always outside their limits. We are investigating shadows of theories on the canvas of our consciousness.

We are very quick in developing dream handling routines and very sleepy to awaken to new totally different levels and ways of understanding the dreams. We may be effective, we may do much good to other people, but we are not alive. We are continuously clinging to Father Dream, to Whatever.

Thou shalt be independent!

I have been interested in dreams twenty-five years, but only during the last four years I have really been able to trap some of those damn nightly creatures. But so often they still escape, do not crack open under the blows of my hammer of methodologies, tricks, "right" ways to analyze the dreams. Monte (Montague Ullman) demonstrated to me the way to hunt them: there is no way but listen, listen very carefully, and then those strange creatures show for you their own ways - and the direction of those ways are always right towards you.

But how to listen? What is the right way to listen? To be silent according which philosophy? What is the right way to chew a five cent bubble gum of THE theory? Monte, Jesus, Buddha, my God, tell me the right way to listen! I do not know. I am too weak, too much a coward, risk too much by venturing all alone in the jungle of endless dream horrors, in strange landscapes, in possible impossibilities, in the dizzying merry-go-round, in the ever-changing kaleidoscope of my life through days and nights.

What is the right way to have no predetermined ways? I am determined to know. Just how can I get rid of the authorities? Please, please tell me because I do not know!

Once upon a time

I did not want to join Monte's group in Sweden in summer 1980. I had heard enough sexual symbolism theories and all kinds of Besserwissers presenting their beliefs how things really are, what dreams really mean. I thought Monte were like all the others; a psychoanalyst and all. In spite of my attitude my Swedish colleagues dragged me into the group. I got even special privileges before I was ready to join. These privileges were very unusual in my position. Now afterwards in my weak moments I am almost ready to see some kind of guidance in it.

The third morning Monte had a dream about me. In the dream I had come to ask him two questions. He took me to the window and showed to me two telephone poles saying to me that if I understand why they are standing just there, only there, nowhere else, I shall get the answer.

For me it flashed immediately open. There was my relationship with him. So completely alone we are, we the telephone poles never reaching each other, not coming an inch, a thousandth of an inch closer to each other. We all are completely, totally, one hundred per cent alone, cosmically aloof, alone now and always. - But there is something else. There is an electrical connection, wires of spirit, intuition between us, the deepest, most profound connection which can be found only in total loneliness, when two human beings know that they both are together completely alone.

Was it my projection? Was it the right interpretation? It was his dream, not mine - and yet it created and verified, moved something inside me, told about the lost but everlasting connection between human beings. I remembered my former days hanging in the gallows of thought feeling there must be something else, my days of struggling through the pieces of my shaken world, finding small weak sprouts of intuition, something outside, something under the layer of theories, under endless trains of thought. And here it was again, the untestable something which cannot be proved, which has truth in it - or not.

From that episode on the dreams have actively traveled with me on my journey through the years, through different dream groups and seminars, in my private life and in my profession as a psychiatrist.

Supervision and education

There is a lack of suitable ideology-independent methods for dream training programs. Psychiatric hospitals and centers are extensions of society containing same deviations as the surrounding society, same helplessness in the intuitive, creative area, bound to mill again and again those seemingly scientific boring "facts", offsprings of psychoanalytic and behavioristic forefathers without possibilities to unexpectedness, freshness, indefinableness. Monte's experiential dream groups are suitable for psychiatric personnel groups for training and supplementary education. The knowledge thus acquired has grown from personal experience. Work problems can be seen in dreams so often that a dream group consisting of a team of fellow workers has a considerable group supervision effect.

Dreams are dangerous

Experience, expertise, dealing with dreams better and better, coping with them with increasing ease, "revealing" them is a dangerous business in spite of your pious hope not to analyze them, not to interpret, not to squeeze them into your little silly theory, let it be psychoanalytic, Gestalt, behavioral, primal scream, Monte's, my or heaven knows whose theory. You are developing a theory, anyway. You are going the easiest way, anyway. The most dangerous thing in dream business are the dreams themselves, the beliefs in them as most honest, dishonest, artistic, stupid, expressions of ourselves or others and so on - even if they were true. Belief is belief irrespective if it coincides with the truth or not.

But who cares about the truth! Let us as liars, i.e. ordinary citizens, consume dreams, let us sell and buy them at the price of theories. They nourish us anyway, even half dead in the grip of the day. Let us go to the squares, to the market places into the tents of the dream authorities like I did in one of my dreams. I went to Monte's tent. But the truth was not there. Has anyone seen it? - I don't care. We impossible human beings still have something left, something to tell each other, something to love in each other.

The most important experiences in my life about the inner nature of man have had nothing to do with dreams. But these more important things cannot be organized and systematized like dream groups. Dream groups are among the most deep and meaningful forms of human interaction that can be scheduled, planned in advance. But nobody knows beforehand what is going to be happen in them.

Dream groups are not free, not honest, not without prejudices, but the area inside these limitations, the working, moving space, is the sum of all individual degrees of freedom, the sum of all individual possibilities, not the claustrophobic cell of the one and only authority, leader, ideology.

Personality and individuality

I have no intention to leave dreams and dream groups. They are rich, artistic, visionary, humorous, fun, creative - but they mean nothing concerning the most important issue, the kernel, the basic truth and lie in us. Dreams can enlarge our personality, but not our individuality. Personality can be a tool for our individuality, our essence, or it can serve outside ideologies creating masks for roles which are not in accordance with our individuality. So the strength of personality attained for example through dreams has nothing to do with honesty and genuineness like the worldwide figure of devil shows us. Everybody knows that gentleman is a tremendously strong personality, and we all know that he is far from being genuine. But strong personality in the service of individuality is the finest combination imaginable.

Dreams, those little devils, are one part of our deeply rooted confusion, the indication of the nonsynchronization of personality and individuality. They are us as confused personalities, not our kernel, our individuality. They are our messenger boy of personality who has forgotten the address of his original employer thinking he has employed himself: this is the only devil.

Subject and object

Dreams are the broken puzzle of the living entity. They belong to the basic lie of "me" - which I call me-ness. But there is no "me". It is the condensation of the most immovable parts of the entity called human being, the most consolidated sides of our psyche which we consciously feel: that's me! But it is only me-ness, the nonfunctional parts of the personality, the stumbling block in the actualization process of our individuality, of our inner self.

Dreams can make us more creative. They can show new channels for our inner resources, but not for our individuality, our central nothingness, the source of real creativity. Dreams, those artistic stupidities, are lying honestly. Dream mirrors do not show the truth but thousands of distorted faces of me-ness. When we are dreams we are exactly the same broken human beings but in a different spotlight. We can become more whole when we are ready to see our raggedness in different angles. Dream view is one of these. The most meaningful integration in us is seeing our disintegration. Seeing is changing. Everything else belongs to Superman-ideology.

This means that there is no object and subject at all. They cannot be separated. Is the picture in your retina you or the world? Are the electrical impulses towards your brains you as the observer or the object of observation? And so on. There is no reasonable physiological or anatomical boundary dividing you and your world apart. But psychologically we experience it so dualistically. The whole idea (let alone the experience) of oneness is very alien to us, very frightening. It means complete loneliness, but at the same time complete unity. Many religions and philosophies have spoken of this experience. There is no proof, but this simple "physiological" thinking is one way to take one's intellect to the limit, understand it "coldly" without really experiencing it. It cannot be verified in laboratory and it cannot be accepted by the public because it threatens too radically the very basis of generally accepted and tolerated views of the life.

Various biology or physics book drawings look so nice illustrating how the world is perceived through the senses, how the subject is observing the object. But this "subject" is not the subject. It is only the perception of the subject. Your perception about yourself and the "outside" world are both only perceptions. You cannot observe the observer.

A man who no more believes in the existence of the objective world might decipher the world as not objective but rather as a distillation and rearrangement of our central nervous system. This analysis contains again the false implication that the CNS is more real than the world it is processing. The CNS is only one perception among others. We cannot catch it as a subject. This is one reason why even the most erudite neurophysioanatopsychophilosophical analyses with wild connections between somatic and psychological variables do not help us to understand our dreams.

The observer has always an influence on his object as Heisenberg realized at the atomic level. But it is not the influence, it is the unity where object and subject are illusions, dualistic hallucinations which manifest themselves on the psychological level as fear keeping the observer psychologically separated from the observed. Dissolving the separating barrier means the disorganization and disappearance of the observer. It is the experience of the schizophrenic and mystic, lunatic and prophet, the experience of dream, delirium, religion, myths and tales. It is the common matrix of the unknown, and only totally unknown can be really new, continuous process of renewal, the dangerous freedom against which we have created the bulwark which is "me": the petrified observer, me-ness, who is seeing his world so clear, so objective, because nothing moves, nothing is unpredictable in him. This kind of clearness is only petrification, motionlessness secured by those everyday means: bitterness, hate, jealousy, feelings of superiority and by thousands of other attitudes helping us in our efforts not to change, not to see our emptiness.

So the question whether dreams represent inner or outer reality is artificial arising from our dualistic, schizophrenic way to experience this world. They are a continuum of endless degrees of distortion. The dream itself is the distortion, one side of me-ness, the neutral, honest lie. In our theories we are questioning how to fit it into our massive illusion of the day.

Loneliness is beyond blindness

Dreams can depict characteristics of others showing sides which even they themselves have not identified, but which as a proof of the accuracy of the dream perhaps later awaken in the resonance between the dreamer and the persons the dream depicted.

These sides, newly found or not, are all parts of ourselves. What we do not contain ourselves, we can never see in others. We are completely blind to many sides of others. I mean much deeper blindness than the general idea of the existence of the hidden sides which can in principle be brought to light in favorable circumstances, e.g. by means of deep psychotherapy or with some other means like dreams. It is the illusion of the objective reality which in certain conditions could be perceived similarly by all observers. We cannot see radio waves. We know their existence by other means, and we understand their communicative value. The same applies to human beings. We look deceivingly similar: two feet and all, but under these superficial phenomena lurks loneliness in cosmic proportions caused by our extremely deep differences. The better we learn to know one another, the farther away we perceive to be from one another.

That's why even the word "blindness" is misleading, because it means that something seen has been lost or something that cannot be seen now, could later be seen in certain circumstances. Our words reflect our ... blindness.

Depressurization of suffering

Dreaming is the most common state for ESP-experiences. When the play of the waking state has ended, when the actor has lost his audience standing all alone in the stage, when he is no more able to cling to his own rehearsed role, then it turns out that he had missed many scenes written over time and space. Dreams in their very nature - even non-ESP dreams - suggest how relative time and space are. Precognitive dream experiences show us that the law of cause and effect has not to be universal. C.G. Jung spoke of synchronistic phenomena. These phenomena happen in waking state too, but dream consciousness seems to be a life form expanding further into these realms.

So dreams do not have to be reflections of the day, effects for the cause of waking life, nor vice versa. They both are one set of possibilities for the nature to discharge tension from different isolated and disintegrated pools of energy. They both are the conveying function for the different fields of life seeking channels of expressions for everything which is isolated. Isolation is suffering. As an analogy of this on the physical level is the phenomenon of entropy, a tendency to reach equilibrium. We and especially our dreams (we as dreams) seem to be the widest channel for these factors with our inner urge to comprehend the whole, i.e. to bring together these isolated factors. This urge to comprehend the whole, this potential antidote to the blind cruelty of nature, is so universal that it transcends the barriers of race, political and religious attitudes (which hamper this comprehension and increase confusion and isolation). So human beings are constantly, through day and night actualizing their conveying function, their part in the play of ever-changing events of this world.

THE ROOTS OF THE THEORIES

I will not in detail describe different theories, compare them, make a ranking list of them, but rather to describe general limitations, roots, strait jackets which every theory has - in fact is - let it be a dream theory or not.

Dream theories use variables of very different hierarchy levels. On the level of somatic dream research we have to reduce variables as much as possible in order to isolate the observed phenomena from unimportant variables. On the psychological level the dream theories consist of such highly complicated and unreductionable variables, that their meaning unavoidably remains to be interpreted in many different and disputable ways.

Interpretation is a secondary process. It is inter-: coming between, changing the phenomenon from what it is to what it is not. When dream is over, the phenomena crossing over time and space are escaping the despotism of senses, vanishing from the sight of the new day leaving only some vague tracks of memories. After them comes the prison guard of interpretation with his keys fitting neatly to the doors of all kinds of analytical cells. Interpretation is squeezing dream dimensions into the one-dimensional prison of thought. The other form of consciousness becomes translated, i.e. mutilated to the other form: to the "real" one, to the "right" one. The compulsive need to interpret everything around us is one hallmark of our sickness: the societal cancer of thought, which is forgetting its own place and function in the wholeness, spreading to other areas of life.

Unrealistic reality

If one speaks only about dreams by speaking about dreams it is one indication of isolated schizophrenia, one reflection of the illness of our technological hyperspecialized culture, the illness named expertitis. We have to inspect dreams in a much wider perspective, take into account things which at the first glance have nothing to do with dreams.

Theorizing about dreams has its biggest obstacle somewhere else than in dreams: in day consciousness. We ordinarily take the waking state as a reference, as a more "real" state of being, and its language the most accurate one, into which everything else must be translated. This kind of theorizing cannot penetrate very deep into the dream realms. First we have to investigate general conditions, myths and as-a-matter-of-facts of the waking state. Elaborate theories have been presented to solve the mystery why does the dreamer believe that his dream is real without asking the reality of his daily life, without taking into account that these both states can be equally real or equally illusionary. The more our view of the world is distorted, the more every dream theory which fits into the "facts" of our "reality" is distorted. We cannot link true to false in any fruitful way.

I have to use words to prove that with words nothing can be proved - not even in mathematics. I have to wander along the crossing paths of science and art and use vague and inexact definitions. The best way to treat this subject were a kaleidoscope of words, the half-dream, borderline, impressionistic way trying to smuggle flashes of intuition into the dark cells of chained intellect. The best method to illuminate dreams favors intuitive, playful, artistic elements; a method which is so minimally a method as possible. Monte's method is a good one in this respect.

How much do I speak about my own illusions when I am leaving the hard facts behind me? I am not sure. Because once in the moment of my highest truth I saw myself lying to myself.

Axioms everywhere

In every theory all variables are derivatives of axioms, the basic assumptions. How are these axioms chosen, then? From where do they come? I shall take two examples from mathematics, where the misleading effect of our cognition in theory formation can be seen especially clearly:

"Ordinary" Euclidean plane geometry rests upon a few axioms. The most known of these says that two parallels never intersect each other. These axioms cannot be proven; they are basic assumptions, which by mutual agreement are supposed to be true, and all theorems can be reduced to these axioms. The system is perfect and true only in its own sphere, nowhere else. Like Albert Einstein put it: "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".

Non-euclidean geometry was possible only after the seemingly senseless assumption that two parallels intersect each other. The power of our everyday cognition is so overwhelming that we take the 'objectivity' of our surroundings as a matter of fact, as an axiom, as a basic truth. How foolish it is to suppose that in an endless spectrum of different levels and forms of consciousness of different organisms the human consciousness were in any respect the right or the best one. It is a small keyhole through which we try to peep the universe. How foolish it is to suppose that we could sense the 'objective' world when every physics and biology book tells us how our sense impulses are completely tightly bound to the structure of our sense organs: that we sense only a narrow and distorted spectrum of something that we know practically nothing of, not even through powerful ESP-dreams.

The other example of the relativity of axioms is even more famous: Albert Einstein wiped even time and matter from the list of our everyday truths. This rebellion against our senses, against our basic truths was needed for science to advance.

Therefore it is evident that all theories and the practical results of them are prisoners of their own axioms. Every question defines the limits for possible answers. Every research method finds results only in its own sphere. The different dream theories distill only their own extract from the endless visions of dreams. The dream horses gallop through the centuries without any respect for theorists who ride on them a little while before falling off.

New axioms cannot be found by analysis, because the new axiom is totally new, therefore it cannot be defined and derived from any other factors of the theory. New axioms can be found only non-analytically, through art; by aesthetic, impressionistic, intuitive leap into the void. This is the only way towards understanding the deeper meanings of dreams, the way to the unknown without any tracks, without a single road sign.

Time and theories

In the endless historical and cultural network of interacting forms of human thought there is really nothing which has not appeared somewhere, sometime before. We have to go back only a century to find most of the notions about dreams that were to be synthesized by Freud and by Jung. Immediately before that period, in the first part of the nineteenth century, the blossoming of Romanticism with its cult of the irrational and of the individual was a real incubator for dream theories in Europe. But these same notions have been expressed through history through the filters of different personalities and different cultures.

Yves Delage had spoken about dream as a dynamic phenomenon, about dream condensation and displacement and dream association chains leading into childhood weaving recent images and old memories together. Karl Albert Scherners sexual dream symbols were much the same as described by Freud. Karl Abraham, Sandor Ferenczi, Otto Rank, Wilhelm Stekel, Alfred Maury, Adolf Strümpell, Johannes Volkelt, W. Robert and others had some of the ingredients which Freud used in synthesizing his own dream theory. But Freud was the first who introduced a systematic dream interpretation as a tool of psychotherapy.

The burning and limitless urge streams endlessly through the filters of limited human beings producing through the millennia endless combinations of the same basic factors. The condensations of certain types of theories and opinions of individuals are highly defined and conditioned by surrounding societal forces and generally accepted institutional nuances of language. The impact of a certain theory on society does not depend only on its creator but on different interpretations and distortions of that theory, on the ideological buds and branches of the followers and apostates. A widely accepted theory is always only a detonator, a sign of much bigger forces, of Zeitgeist, which drags a theory down the muddy river of time without asking if the theory remains pure or not.

The theories of the human psyche consist of horizontal and vertical information. The language and thought conditioned by cultural surroundings gather information from other contributors horizontally via reasoning, intellect, analysis. Horizontal information is knowledge.

Real innovators, pathfinders, get the most part of their work from inside, vertically, intuitively, via synthesis. Vertical information is understanding. Knowledge without understanding is blind, understanding without knowledge is lame.

The colleagues, the earlier researchers and the contemporaries give the concepts, the language with which even the most original innovator is obliged to operate. But he can utilize only the factors he has in himself, because he can never see in others such areas which he himself does not contain. It is one reason why the unified theory, consensus, philosophical ecumenicalism, is impossible. We never understand so fully each other. The tree of human thinking shall produce endless variations of individual leafs.

Even historical research is not accurate in this respect. Every historian obtains different results. It is almost impossible to judge who in the past was influenced by whom, and on the other hand to evaluate what is truly original, vertically, intuitively acquired information.

There is no growing understanding of meaning of dreams through research and theories. The act of understanding is not additive in spite of the evolving sciences and their results. Only knowledge is cumulative, not understanding. Natural sciences are evolving relying on knowledge, objective, measurable, testable variables. It is possible to analyze the human psyche too, to gather cumulative knowledge of it, to find reliable correlations with very intricate and elaborate psychostatistical methods, but the progress of understanding has nothing to do with knowledge. But man needs both. The flame of understanding once so alive creates continuously new forms, new theories, then escapes from them leaving behind the dead shells of theories, gradually calcifying organizations fighting against new forms which in turn shall after a while die.

Even if the inner psychological factors found by a certain theory had high reliability (repeatedly similar results in tests and observations) they still have no validity (real existence validated by methods independent upon the theory in question). Has anyone demonstrated the existence of Eros and Thanatos, archetypes, dreams as wish fulfillments, the honesty of dreams and so on?

In the spell of the wizard of intellect, of positivism, of dream research we reach for ever escaping rainbow of "real" understanding of dreams. In the conceptual prison of our conditioned consciousness, culture and language we are prone to misinterpret the findings of former times, not seeing that the understanding of dreams has been attained by very many individuals throughout the history, but their way of expressing it has been so different that we have difficulties to see the common factor which is outside any forms and descriptions. The history of understanding is revolving, not evolving.

There is one exception: evolution of man.

Some theories

The most widely known theory - nowadays - is of course Freud's. It has a tendency to give relatively definite meanings for dream symbols interpreting them with psychosexual development and transference terminology. It anticipates to find a wish fulfillment in dreams and a censorship, a latent meaning behind their manifest level, behind their facade. All these presumptions narrow the dream scene. It cannot bring anything new to dream research before it finds new axioms.

It is very easy to have presumptions in exactly the same way by presuming the opposite and denying that these factors can be found in dreams. Erich Fromm has said that dream censorship "is a 'censorship' only for people with little poetic imagination". Jung expressed the same idea in his memories: "I was never able to agree with Freud that the dream is a 'facade' behind which its meaning lies hidden. ... To me dreams are a part of nature, which harbors no intention to deceive, but express something as best it can."

Others who take the dream "as it is" are for example Ullman, gestaltist Frederick Perls and phenomenologist Medard Boss. - Boss is most careful not to interpret dreams in terms of our everyday consciousness. Our familiarity with a certain type of experience does not mean that it is the most suitable one through which everything else should be interpreted. Familiarity has nothing to do with truth. This applies to day experiences and dreaming as well.

In our efforts to understand the dream we cannot rely on Freudian wish fulfillments, Jungian archetypes, Boss's, Ullman's, my or anybody else's presumptions. - Yet in a way they all are helpful. They are different shadows from the same flame of life.

The best theory

Which theory is best, then? - It is the dreamer's own theory about his own dream. It is his own view of the world, his own philosophy of life. From the soil of his world has his dream grown up. It can be as pitiful as the dreamer himself. It can be as limited, perverted, destructive, dumb, simple as its owner. But it is the only one what he needs, what he can cope with. It can be a theory in its most negative form, a new excuse, a new distorted reason for him to continue his miserable life. But it is the right one for him.

We understand his theory when we do not orient ourselves to the reductionistic direction but to the opposite. When we do not anymore observe the dream from any fixed theoretical standpoint, we leave the theory formation to the dreamer. When we are not looking for the presupposed connections to our favorite theory, we allow the greatest possibility for dreamer's own connections to emerge. This free floating non-reductionistic way dilutes the richness and artistic aroma of the dream the least.

Yet the dream group is never honest. Never. Unexpressed, unknown theories, assumptions, axioms, limitations exist always in the group. The group has its own group theory, its insurmountable limits. But the limits are far wider than in the groups where immediately from the beginning there exists only one theory, one person, one leader, one sieve trough which life is split filtering out only the biggest lumps of immovabilities, the most deathlike factors. In spite of this the outer structure of dreams groups favors and encourages the use of play, imagination, inspiration and intuition, the non-analytical, higher form to acquire knowledge. Analytic results can be derived from intuition, but not vice versa.

ART AND SCIENCE

Could the wholeness of vision opening through elements of art, through intuition, be the highest form of science? This is a challenge to the narrow definition of science: can science acquire knowledge irrespective of the way, the method by which it is acquired? Analysis does not need intuition, science does not need art and vice versa, but man needs both.

But in order not to burn our wings in the sun of art like Icarus, we have to remember that it was the science of the telescope which structured the endlessness of the heavens, and it was the science of the microscope which detected forgeries of art. The grip of science on dreams is valuable, even if it seems occasionally to squeeze them a little bit too roughly.