This about sleep function, & this about a region in the brain responsible for (/not) remembering dreams
It seems to me that enough neurological evidence now exists for some imaginative scientist to begin to correlate it & construct a fully psychosomatic theory of dream function that unites both the hardware, firmware & software of homo sapiens? (or should that be homo impercipiens?)
Yet OTOH maybe this is beyond our collective consciousness at the present time because (just as the Romans lacked a concept of zero) we today lack the concept of a circular argument (ie, where one factor can have a variable meaning according to its place in the expression) & thus there is no way to represent a concept such as relative or variable objectivity?
I was thinking about this as a result of rereading The Cloude of Unknowing, the extraordinary 15thC anonymous guide to finding God whose breathtakingly straightforward writing remains as luminous to psychoanalytically-aware post-Darwinians as it has done to generations of church-Christians. And this led me to a perception that what we can understand of G** is what is at once wholly objective. yet wholly other within us. That in fact the idea G** (as a living experience) represents the perfect equipoise or sweet spot between the chaos of the senses & impulses, the balance between action & inaction - a state that transcends time, as perennial wisdom transcends human wisdom, which cannot be acquired but exists only as a gift. Perhaps comprehensible as a harmonic produced on a string, yet one that obeys not merely physical laws but metaphysical ones which involve the kind of relative objectivity created by archetypes of experience (just as fashion /pop /film creates certain images which epitomise transient social beliefs or 'probabilities’) but at a far more profound level.
It interests me that god is a word like love that means anything or nothing according to personal experience. Trying to abolish or sidestep the word god achieves nothing since the sense the word embodies is by definition indefinable. And this seems to tally with the idea that the fullest experience is like a ladder apparently leaning against nothing, the rational and non-rational have to coexist in reciprocal balance.
Which is where dreams come in.
It seems to me that enough neurological evidence now exists for some imaginative scientist to begin to correlate it & construct a fully psychosomatic theory of dream function that unites both the hardware, firmware & software of homo sapiens? (or should that be homo impercipiens?)
Yet OTOH maybe this is beyond our collective consciousness at the present time because (just as the Romans lacked a concept of zero) we today lack the concept of a circular argument (ie, where one factor can have a variable meaning according to its place in the expression) & thus there is no way to represent a concept such as relative or variable objectivity?
I was thinking about this as a result of rereading The Cloude of Unknowing, the extraordinary 15thC anonymous guide to finding God whose breathtakingly straightforward writing remains as luminous to psychoanalytically-aware post-Darwinians as it has done to generations of church-Christians. And this led me to a perception that what we can understand of G** is what is at once wholly objective. yet wholly other within us. That in fact the idea G** (as a living experience) represents the perfect equipoise or sweet spot between the chaos of the senses & impulses, the balance between action & inaction - a state that transcends time, as perennial wisdom transcends human wisdom, which cannot be acquired but exists only as a gift. Perhaps comprehensible as a harmonic produced on a string, yet one that obeys not merely physical laws but metaphysical ones which involve the kind of relative objectivity created by archetypes of experience (just as fashion /pop /film creates certain images which epitomise transient social beliefs or 'probabilities’) but at a far more profound level.
It interests me that god is a word like love that means anything or nothing according to personal experience. Trying to abolish or sidestep the word god achieves nothing since the sense the word embodies is by definition indefinable. And this seems to tally with the idea that the fullest experience is like a ladder apparently leaning against nothing, the rational and non-rational have to coexist in reciprocal balance.
Which is where dreams come in.
No comments:
Post a Comment