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.