The Helper In The Dream

Emotion was the message of that dream. I say that because with dreams I usually do review, as many people do, and meditate on them afterward to see which elements compare, contrast, and refer to what is occurring in the awake state. In this dream that emotion, elation, joy, was the purest message and it didn’t take too much reviewing to see how that related to my present experiences.

I agree with you that emotion could interfere with an assessment. But I’m sure you also know from your own such examinations that dream material is of a highly fluid character, ‘separations’ are not so defined. It’s like examining water on a slide under a microscope compared to examining water in situ such as a stream, a shore, the rain, etc. The former can give you some details but the latter examples can show a larger dynamic and context. In this particular dream related, emotion was front and center.

Nonetheless, I do intend to meditate on it and see where the details lead especially because of its wonderful import. Nothing wrong with reverse engineering, as long as the ‘quality’ of what is being examined is not compromised.

Can the sub-conscious be attributed in a dream(2 doors) within the sub conscious?

My experience with an auditory dream with no visuals, indicate 2 mental processes going on at the same time? Like the auditory , one with no or little content, and one with it?
And the key to the helper in two forms( old lady, young man), be indicative about some need to describing both forms? Or something like this?

An example is one mentioned, as the Polanyi dream, strictly auditory, linear and may be interpretive of a kind of Oracle, as mentioned above.

Or another, with a question to the oracle: as also mentioned, about a game being played in the unconscious, a prisoner’s dilemma occuring within the unconscious , the dream. Can the two helpers or even guardians facilitate recognition of metaphoric content?

In that event a deothness to the roles can be discerned to arise, as a third man solution to the dilemma.

Solution: at the level of contradiction, the metaphor has to include, not exclude the middle .

This requirement, is necessary for proper dream interpretation as a transcendentalky full content.
Can I thus, incorporate the Polanyi example , and give substance to the question of whether there really is a way, an exit out of one dimensionality, and pricerde from the seeming existential nothingness into the content of full being.

If I can shed light here, it may support proof positive for elevating the question worthy to ask, the oracle.

The thing is, the man in the middle in a transcendental/transactional situation, relies on the flow of suggested dream-scales, where the two tries to diminish the difference between types of helpers , I f not, they can switch roles , and become hunters.

The two drives the hunter, there by becoming hunted. by becoming non distinguishable, and that is a difficult middle position.

Oracle not accessible there, and leads either to repression - turning into dreams. Or strike out, the third. , excluding the middle, who is desperately trying to stay within.

Meno

I’m sure that when you write your observations and questions there is a rhyme and reason. But I find that trying to make the connections of what you say is at times like playing pick-up sticks. So with that in mind let’s clarify a couple or so questions at a time.

“Can the sub-conscious be attributed in a dream(2 doors) within the sub conscious?”

Are you asking if the dream of the double doors can be attributable to the subconscious? ‘Within’ it as opposed to an external location such as an OBE would imply?

“My experience with an auditory dream with no visuals…”

To my recollection, I do not remember ever having an auditory dream with no visuals. The nearest analogy that I can think of would be listening to a piece of music ‘as itself’. But even there the music would provoke some imagery.

What do you mean by, “Oracle”? And your statement of, “…worthy to ask, the oracle” ?

Let’s start with those.

This start maybe a beginning or end, depending Your appreciation of the general framework of the connective impulse leading to an intentional motive, as is traditionally viewed philosophically and psychologically. Mind You, this is uncharted territory, especially from my point of view, and it’s more inclined to concern with Jung than with a Freudian look into dreams.

I will answer that with my take on the character of symbolism as it applies to the particular dream related in this topic. I do this partly because I think that it’s the pivot of your observations and partly because I still find it tricky to interpret the manner in which you relate on said observations. There’s nothing wrong with such manner, it’s the ‘voice’ of the writer. But at times, said voice might employ free association modes that makes the sequence of interpretation by the reader a kind of patchwork.

Symbolism, by it’s very definition is of a ‘representational’ character. Thus it is not the, ‘thing-in-itself’. What that means re the dream related is that we are left with the task of discerning whether it is wholly generated by the subconscious’ apparatus, or if it’s of supraconscious or even super-physical import (remote viewing being one example of super-physical). In other words, the ‘helpers’ are either representational mirages, or they are actual entities albeit in a distant ‘locale’ that the perceiver witnesses. At this point things are fairly neat and simple, it’s either-or.

I figure you know of the Hermetic Principles. The first one, the Principle of Mentalism, states that, 'The All is Mind; the Universe is Mental". That at a foundational level all phenomena of life share a connection in the fact that they exist within the mind of ‘The All’. If such a context holds, then symbolism would be relegated to the status of, say, a photograph. It can be a good photograph, depicts things clearly and sharply, and as such still qualifies as an effective representational device. But it would no longer be considered a principle ‘generator’ of phenomena, it would only generate ‘reiterations’ of itself. Just from this we could radiate out in different considerations but here I just want to focus on the aspect of the ‘helpers’.

If the premise of ‘All is Mind’ holds, then the ‘helpers’, and for that matter all other phenomena in dreams/OBEs, are actualities, they’re ‘real’, not merely symbolic products. It would echo what you noted in an earlier post: “… for life may indeed be merely a dream.” I would only differ with you on the ‘merely’. :slight_smile:

Symbolism is not without merit, we rely on it for many things in our existence. Language itself, perhaps the premier stream of symbolism, is what we use every day and right now in this discussion. Yet, as philosophers have pointed out and what every person has noted without necessarily being a philosopher, language is a representation. It’s been said that, ‘The map is not the territory’. At least with that we have ‘territory’ as the focus. With symbolism it could be that, ‘The symbols are not the map’. And if we regard language in that manner, well, then it could very well be, ‘Language is . . . . .’ (and you fill in whatever is appropriate for you).

So, in the ‘All is Mind’ premise, the ‘helpers’, the ‘ghost’ aspects, and yes, the Oracle, could all be real. They only seem unreal because our station in existence is maybe not equipped to perceive them. Thus, perhaps, our reliance on an ethos of representation in so many of our endeavors.

Does any of that mean that I am now free to ignore all symbols? No, if when I’m driving I see a stop sign, I will stop. I don’t think ‘All is Mind’ will regard me lesser for it. :slight_smile:

Sure the representation within the absolute mind is merely a map. And that is a conscious interpretation within the symbolic content of the dream.

However that interpretation coincides with the Freudian totem , and levels down it is less figurative, more substantial, in terms of the sensible , qua, sensation , less figurative, and that is the source of major oracles, it’s source has been filtered through the muraids of time, before that, and before even that, into a downward spiral infinity, whose totem is really the beginning of phallic inference.

If your were to along Freud’s line. But Jung extends this into more dimensions and ends up with reality within epochs which bear definition within their own subsequent perimeters. Their flowing into each other is based more on metaphor then actual succession of images and ideas spliced together, mostly their gaps consist of situational variable fillers, because all representation. Is acquired after exposure, a posteriori.

It appears as flow, and my free flow only factually submerges such flow into the lower realms of increasingly excluded temporal space.

At the limit, the unfathomable looks backward at the identified essence who asks the oracle. This absolute can be accessed, but only subliminally, from beyond where limits no longer assail with scepticism and doubt. It is through the veils of doubt that certainty comes to emit a generated energy packet of quantum uncertainty, made explicit by the power of the will to communion.
The helpers need to appear to alley the uncertainty, because at the level of the inquiry , the inquirer would be thrown into apotheosis of incredible negative power, most certainly destroyed by such energy.
The helpers may be a defensive shield to the dream’s downward lunge into the unfathomable .
Nietzsche was a pioneer, he has become a helper. For me, it’s Polanyi.

I’m not sure about that segue. By, “within the symbolic content…” do you actually mean “of the symbolic content…” ? There is a difference, or maybe I’m reading it wrong. Could you please rephrase that?

I can see the totemic aspect re this discussion because of the ‘representational’ element. But what does the Freudian totem with its connotations have to do with the context of the ‘helper’ dreams? Are the ‘helpers’ of sexual significance or were you using that totem as merely an example discharged of its particular characteristics?

Interesting that you bring up Jung. He once said that God spoke through dreams and visions. That would seem to make a case for the first Hermetic principle. By the way, you didn’t say if you considered the principle a valid one.

I gather you mean, ‘allay’?

Yes, as I noted in an earlier post there may be safeguards employed. Whether by the inquirer or an ‘other’, I’m not sure.

If that is so - or more accurately, the potential for that - it implies an ‘agent’ independent of the inquirer (assuming you mean by ‘inquirer’ the person having the dream experience) who is aware of a peril that the inquirer is unaware of. Following along that line, would the frequency of ‘helper’ dreams be an indicator as to proximity to destructive regions? Similar to, let’s say, a spaceship registering the outermost traction of a black hole?

Or, upward? Though in the omnidirectional display of direction such as implied by, ‘All is Mind’, then up, down, left right, etc., may be irrelevant.

By the way, I understand how you use ‘apotheosis’, but it’s a tricky word to use in some contexts because one of its roots is, ‘the act of making someone into a god’. Then again, maybe you are of the opinion that dreams/OBEs, especially high-risk ones, are possibly preparatory for such. :slight_smile:

:

Meno_"]Sure the representation within the absolute mind is merely a map. And that is a conscious interpretation within the symbolic content of the dream.
[/quote]
I’m not sure about that segue. By, “within the symbolic content…” do you actually mean “of the symbolic content…” ? There is a difference, or maybe I’m reading it wrong. Could you please rephrase that?

  1. Your first question is caught up in semantic complexity, therefore, and since the dissection of hybrid re-presentation between cognitive differentials is sourced in definitions, I quote Frege:

Sep 23, 2007 · The central idea of the alternative interpretation is that for Frege, the question whether a given thought is logically entailed by a collection of thoughts is sensitive not just to the formal structure of the sentences used to express those thoughts, but also to the contents of
the simple (e.g., geometric) terms …

Here ‘formal’ can entail ‘absolute’ as well, reminiscent of set theory, where the absolute contains every set, including it’self.

Here conscious, unconscious(sleep derived) and subconscious (absolute containment of awareness past, present and future)-[ remember we alluded to this previously, in terms of of primary spatial determinants of time.] Absolute spatial indeterminancy exposes the lack of object(ive) of the imminence of all cognition. Transcendence, on the other hand is objectified by a particular epoch, or the object’s frame of reference, or context which brings about the overcoming of said object, referred to.
The overcoming of it, sets in motion(spatial relativity per movement through time) of the objective particular.

Del Overs, -the above is unsupportive in it’self and will bring about further needs for clarification, and we are still at Your first request for such clarification. I can not as yet offer such support without bringing in thematic interdisciplinary unity. Here is a suggestive one:

AGVA FESTSCHRIFT

Shifting frontiers of transcendence in theology, philosophy and science

ABSTRACT

“This article dealt cursorily with developments in theology, philosophy and the sciences that have contributed to what one might call horizontal transcendence. The premise is that humans have evolved into beings that are wired for transcendence. Transcendence is described in terms of the metaphor of frontiers and frontier posts. Although the frontiers of transcendence shift according to the insights, understanding and needs of every epoch and world view, it remains transcendent, even in its immanent mode. Diverse perceptions of that frontier normally coexist in every era and we can only discern a posteriori which was the dominant one. Frontiers are fixed with reference to the epistemologies, notions of the subject and power structures of a given era. From a theological point of view, encounter with the transcendent affords insight, not into the essence of transcendence, but into human self-understanding and understanding of our world. Transcendence enters into the picture when an ordinary human experience acquires a depth and an immediacy that are attributed to an act of God. In philosophy, transcendence evolved from a noumenal metaphysics focused on the object (Plato), via emphasis on the epistemological structure and limits of the knowing subject (Kant) and an endeavour to establish a dynamic subject-object dialectics (Hegel), to the assimilation of transcendence into human existence (Heidegger). In the sciences certain developments opened up possibilities for God to act in non-interventionist ways. The limitations of such an approach are considered, as well as promising new departures – and their limitations – in the neurosciences. From all of this I conclude that an immanent-transcendent approach is plausible for our day and age.”

Particularly, the relation between the inner/outer terms of imminance/transcendence are pointed to as inter penetrable.

So if that reasoning is followed, there is no distinction between “of” or “within” , between the content and it’s defining mode. This would suggest an inter penetrability between the symbol and content in dreams suggestive of the absolute Being or the set containing all sets , including the set that is particular, vis the particular dream containing the self as an object within the dream.
When the self is excused, then it experiences the dream objectively, or non transcendentally.

The totem becomes taboo, when its firm includes its phallic aspect per interpretive realization, at times becoming allied within its structural modality, (functioning as a phallus) or outside of it, merely using 'horizontal, sub conscious representation with no other objectification, and objective. )
Here again, objective displays change in differing spatial arrangements = interchange of patterned relationships if involved spatially determined ‘bits’ of designated parts= in the dream.

As the later, above reference indicates, there is no distinction between an imminent and an exigent state (psychic), no clear cut exclusion, but a peneyrability. The dream may refer to any different psychic states, whether the source from million years in the past or yesterday, their set ( or context may be used safely) are interchangeable causally ( determentally or not) , and the interpretation of symbols may fluctuate between a Freudian repressive causality, or a broader consuming contextuality( content) , without a clear cut conclusion of the spatial determinants within the continuum of that particular dreamers psychic reality.

This is why I see vertical continuum to be totally unreliable on the whole, because it is a one dimensionality that restricts meaning to the most peripheral slice of understanding. Its like cutting a circle out of a sphere.

I’m sure that even this would be insufficient to try understand, rather than simply know the language behind the description, but it does attempt to answer Your first paraphrased narrative. Its a start.

Attempted to look at the next 3 paraphrased requests for clarification, and surprisingly found interpenetrability to/with the previous answer given , making work less complex, in part by using the first question and answer referentially, without having to repeat identical or even similar suggestions.

There is nothing complex about it. Any interpretation ‘within’ symbolic content (not just a dream, anything) is subject to the content’s parameters, i.e., the content/symbols dictate the interpretation. Just like when you read the words (symbols) in a novel they dictate the sequence and myriad of characteristics that give substance to whatever the story may be. “Of the content” is different positionally. It’s like the interpretation of a critic reviewing the novel, he or she has a different engagement with it. Granted, there are occasions where one can be loose with interpretations but in discussions of this type precision is important otherwise we do end up at cross-semantic purposes.

The reason I asked the question of the difference is because you referenced it to ‘absolute mind’. I doubt that anyone knows enough of absolute mind to characterize its phenomena as real or unreal. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the aforementioned Hermetic principle which states that everything is Mind and thus ‘real’.

As for the rest of the sentence: “…dissection of hybrid re-presentation between cognitive differentials is sourced in definitions…”, that seems like it’s referencing it to some kind of dementia. Whether or not that is your intention, I’m not sure.

Now there’s a perfect example of a positional symbol error yielding an interesting perspective. Even I didn’t notice that. Thank you. :slight_smile:

Thematic examinations are all good and well but they have to exhibit a core, organizational construct. Much has been said in recent years about cross-disciplinary approaches and it’s definitely progressive but there has to be a defined objective otherwise it can become a grab-anything-and-see-what-sticks approach. If you want a collage then no problem,.but if it’s a well-integrated resolution that is sought, then you’d better have that core. Following is an example of this and may I add one that refers to what I said previously about, “… free association modes that makes the sequence of interpretation by the reader a kind of patchwork.” in reference to you manner of presenting information.

You and others are probably aware of those little, blank books that you can draw something on, like a stick-man, and on each page you draw the man a little differently than the previous page. When you finish drawing on all the pages you flip them fast and it gives the illusion of the stick-man walking, jumping, whatever. There are times when I will be reading your comments and it’s as if the drawings of the stick-man were pulled, shuffled, and then reinserted into the book. The fast-flipping then presents something different. The ‘sequence’ is there, the ‘content’ is there, but the ‘context’ seems a little squirrelly. Nothing wrong with that, but you can see how the interpreter could have a trying time with it.

Just out of curiosity, and respectfully, are you high when you write your replies? Again, nothing wrong with that. Personally, at this time in my life I smoke a little herb maybe once every 6 months or so. Maybe when I do so next time I will come back to this thread and then I’ll say, “Ahh, yes, now I get where he was coming from”. :smiley:

Whether the revelation justifies anything, that’s another matter.

Del Ivers,

Ok. I knew this was coming. And I told You so. And I covered only the differential question regarding “of”, and “within”

My using anything has absolutely no bearing in this forum. as You appropriately poi t out, and mark my use of “absolute” in this description of my self taking on psychic self awareness, in objectifying states of mind.
That trying to be devoid any emotional attachment. and staying in neutral position concerning this and any other issue or proposition that comes along, is my own earned preference.

The sub stance of conveying content will follow. Incidentally , I appreciate Your comments that pertain to Your dream, and maybe if You are somewhat deterministic in Your life’s thematical superposition, You may start co considering me as some kind of helper , objectively speaking , and possibly start in earnest getting somewhere honestly and with objectivity.

Absolutely. I neither stated nor implied that it wasn’t.

I may approach something with ‘emotion’, but discussing things such as we have been doing and in different topics with others in the forum is a different level of the application of emotion. That others regard my text narrative as emotional, or any other state for that matter, is no proof that such is my core makeup. Think of the psycholigist’s fallacy as noted by William James where he:

“…insisted repeatedly that it was fallacious to assume that the research participant’s experience was to be understood in terms of the readily-available categories of the researcher. The psychologist’s fallacy (of which all researchers concerned with experience may fall foul, not only psychologists) involves a confusion of the standpoints of the researcher and the researched.”

In the last sentence of your last posting, you state: “You may start co considering me as some kind of helper , objectively speaking , and possibly start in earnest getting somewhere honestly and with objectivity.”

Who is to to say what or whom is earnest? Who is to say I’m not being honest nor displaying objectivity? Your ‘standpoint’ is not necessarily my standpoint. You may consider yourself a helper, and that’s nice enough. But not necessarily when it’s wholly based on your own, readily-available categories.

Look at the social media (forums among them) world that we witness at the present. It’s overly-saturated with people defending their standpoints even against the most obvious of facts. It’s like Descartes’, “I am”, on steroids and ready to rumble. I’m not saying you’re one of them, I’m just pointing out the field we’re in. Advocacy or not is your call as likewise it is mine.

I just think that you and I, us and others, we’re on different frequencies. And if regardless of all of that defending we are able to communicate and enjoy what basic understanding confers, that’s cool. Better that than being paupers and delusionally regarding ourselves as kings.

Cheers

The Philosopher in Meditation

Fair enough, we are on differing frequencies, and an intwntion matters, where a good one does make a huge sifference, in spite a less worthy an outcome , than a lack or a bad intentional start, luckily ending better worthy., more admirable.

Intentions are even less measurable in this age of pre-fabricated desires of outcomes, all measured for exacting the most tractable profitability.

Therefore , there are may not be unexpected surprises when that fine line between honesty and fabrication is broken.

In my dreams of similar unfolding to your’s, I am always ALWAYS ignored, and this is something I have had to get used to, to my reality in the cold light of day… the majority don’t help me because they think that the next person I come across will help me, so they leave it to that person I come across to help this fellow citizen out, and then that person doesn’t help me because they think that the next person I come across will help this fellow citizen out, so they leave it to the next person I will come across to help me, ad infinitum.

The story of my life, and a story I’ve got used to… my personalised self-help manual, if you will.

For clarification, are you saying that in your dreams rather than a helper, or for that matter anyone, that what you’ve experienced is no one helping?
Is this just in the dream? In life?

Both! both in my dreams and in real life… my dreams always being reflective of my reality.

I was offered help once… the offer of a job… I thought myself too young to be thrown into the adult world, for others to try to take advantage of me, but since that one offer I’ve been left on my own… it’s very character-building you know.

Perhaps I’m black-listed on some system somewhere as a renegade after saying no… they didn’t take it kindly, you see.

In the ‘helper’ dreams I guess that if I were to really analyze the psychological aspects then maybe I would find correspondences with the awake state. But in many of them they (helper) seemed more of something apart as I’ve mentioned. In other words, the ‘helper’ was someone who assisted me in the dream but who did not seem to be a part of the dream. The analogy that comes to mind is a bookmark, it shows your place in a book but it is not part of what the book is about. The other analogy which I previously described is that of an usher who is part of the movie experience but not the movie.

The description is one of those where I read it and from ‘between the lines’ I can make a guess as to what is being referred to, but it’s too ambiguous for me to offer an informed view on it. And by that I don’t mean to solicit further details, it’s just that there is an indication of a reference but nothing ‘about’ the reference. It’s like me saying, I went to this place and the people there were really mean to me. You or anyone else would be asking, what place? What people?

Then throw in, “Perhaps I’m black-listed on some system somewhere as a renegade after saying no… they didn’t take it kindly, you see.”, and you can see how it would be difficult as to what’s what.

Having said that, and since we’re talking about dreams, then when you say, “…some system somewhere…” are you referring to a system other than in the awake state, i.e., other than a social system or other organizational element in reality?

I’m seeing a lot of talk about dream helpers but nobody has said a word about hamburger helper. Are you all aware of the variety of delicious entrees made possible by this revolutionary prepackaged ingredient kit? Ought you to say something about this kind of helper instead? How many times has a dream helper put something delicious on your table?

Nuff said.