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