[The following is a refinement on an article sent to the philpsy list (philosophy-psychology) of the APA division 32 together with some additional material touched on by me in some emails to individuals. The left/right dichotomy is linked to the concepts of primary (left) and secondary (right) in the context of analysis and so the particular. The overall pattern is more an oscillation of general-particular-general]
Abstract
The more we analyse the neurological and psychological characteristics of the human brain, the more we become aware that much of our sense of meaning is illusion where a SECONDARY process has been interpreted as a PRIMARY process. The PRIMARY process works as a form of gate-keeper with an emphasis on 'correct/incorrect' as well as a link to instinctive behaviours i.e. gene-based. The replacement of the primary process as fundamental with the secondary process has led to the emergence of psychotherapeutic disciplines that deny the existence of randomness, for these disciplines EVERYTHING has meaning. This article, based on current neurological research, brings us to the conclusion that this denial of randomness leads to the creation of illusions that humans will then live-by. The attempts to present these disciplines as 'scientific' will always fail as long as the belief that 'everything has meaning' is maintained and so randomness denied. Disciplines such as Psychoanalysis etc are reduced to being synonymous with the study of entrails to predict the future as well as such disciplines as Astrology and Tarot etc etc. All of these are useful metaphors for describing relational processes but are incomplete in that they fail to include all aspects of our nature; a fundamental process in Science where the emphasis on problem solving requires identification of chance processes and leaving it at that; there is no need to go 'deeper', to understand 'what is behind this?' even though there seems to be a species survival instinct of (a) all sensations are potentially meaningful and (b) all sensations are potentially linked together.
At the fundamental level I can juxtapose any TWO words from a dictionary and with some reflection 'get' meaning. How so? because we are driven to identify and we do this by trying to 'fit' one of a set of possible meanings we have 'in here' onto 'out there'. This process disallows for 'randomness' in that the drive to identify contains an insistence factor in that there MUST be meaning in all experiences; in the set of possible meanings that we carry with us there is no element for 'meaningless' when we are considering relationships but this can come about from the fact that for us the discovery of a relationship MUST manifest 'something'. You can easily try this in that any two words can initially appear as 'meaningless' but reflection will then elicit some meaning. This comes from the transference of analysis from the explicit 'this is meaningless' assertion to a 'what is behind this' and so implicit meaning analysis.. This second process tries to FORCE meaning but this meaning can be illusion .. see below...
The neurology behind dreams suggests that rather than the whole brain going to sleep, only parts do and they
do this following an approximate 90-110 minute rhythm that is alway functioning, it is not a pattern limited to
distinguishing REM (Rapid Eye Movement) sleep from other sleep, this rhythm is with us all 24 hours a day, we just
noticed it more in sleep studies. (you can 'see' it at work in breathing patterns through nostrils etc)
With this pattern in mind (!) dreams can be split into two general types -- mundane matter-of-fact dreams that
are strongly ordered, lack 'colour' (bot literally., and metaphorically.) and (2) vivid dreams of the REM type,
more often strongly aspectual in form containing rich colours/tones etc but also lacking a degree of 'correct/incorrect'
impositions; the relational processes these dreams favour can seem 'illogical' in form with 'random' elements exaggerated
as if we had lost our ability to discriminate 'this' from 'that'.
The structure of these dreams maps to the general processing bias of left and right hemispheres
in the brain. (note the BIAS emphasis. There is a fractal process going on here where, for example, the left/right
hemisphere relationships of 'what'(object) vs 'where'(relationship) are found when we change scale to be in lobe
relationships within each hemisphere (e.g. temporal is 'what' and parietal is 'where') as well as neural column
networks within lobes (e.g. frontal as well as occipital lobe column network 'interdigitations' of 'what'/'where'
and 'left visual field'/'right visual field' linkable to the 'what/where' distinction as well)
The source of the 'sleep' signal seems to be in a very old section of our brains where a full system shutdown could
occur. This section of the brain (part of the 'reptilian' brain) is the only area where the introduction of lesions
creates permanent unconsciousness.
With higher lifeforms that have a developed system clock (these clocks are located in the limbic system, a part
of the brain that developed *after* the reptilian) it seems that dreams in some way reflect the awakeness of parts
of the brain during the sleep cycle ; mundane dreams seem more 'left' thinking and 'vivid' dreams more 'right'
thinking. (during the day the cycle is present such that there are periods where you are better at 'left brained'
tasks than 'right brained' and visa versa.)
The emphasis on vivid dreams being more right brain, links these types of dreams to metaphors which are better
interpreted by the right hemisphere than the more concrete biased left hemisphere. ( I shall emphasise the left/right
hemis, just dont forget the BIAS aspects :-))
To jump back to 'meaning', any distinction of 'this' from 'that', be it object or relationship, leads to an
encoding of 'this' by painting it with emotions, imposing meaning onto it. This is the process of metaphorcation
where 'this' becomes the carrier of meaning, it has none itself, meaning is imposed on it by us either at the instinct
(gene based) level (identification of mother/father etc) or at the psychological/social level.
We can see the emphasis on a 'need' for identification in the so-called Near Death Experiences where the common
experience is of the 'tunnel with the light at the end/in the distance' etc This has been given 'meaning' by us
and yet at the neurological level this tunnel/light phenomenon is linked to the RANDOM firing of neurons as oxygen
flow diminishes. We are driven to reject this concept in that the identification drive forces us not to include
random processes, we will more often than not find more in coincidence than is there, introducing concepts such
as synchronicity, 'heaven/hell', another 'dimension' etc, etc.
This drive to find links seems to stem from the drive to discover relationships and the reluctance to accepting
'random' processes that can create the perceptions of relationships that are in fact illusions. These illusions
include dreams, especially of the vivid types (i.e. REM based). At the general persona categorisation level, right-brained
thinking is driven by a seeking of identity; a drive to discover what is BEHIND things.
Since REM based dreams seem to have a more 'right brain' structuring so they DO manifest metaphors in that the
interpretation of these dreams demands analysis of the relationship of dream expression to context, we need to
get BEHIND the dream to discover the 'true' intent, as we have to do with metaphors. In the more left-brained type
dreams there is no metaphorcation (or perceived metaphorcation). These types of dreams reflect matter-of-fact occurences,
single context stuff. (although perhaps due to the more 'left brained' individuals being 'totalist' in thinking
so there is more 'darkness' behind these dreams (?). At the general persona categorisation level left-brained thinkers
are more sensation seeking and so more into the 'one' rather than the 'many')
Since randomness IS a 'reality', its introduction forces us to consider the 'fact' that some or even all REM dreams
are in fact 'noise' created by part of the brain functioning whilst others sleep; perhaps from an adaption perspective
this partial awakeness manifests an 'on your guard' behaviour.
For REM dreams so a combination of a relational bias with a lack of 'correct/incorrect' determination favours a
lacking in precision which is exactly what right brained thinking manifests in that the emphasis on relationships
and 'behindness' misses 'the point'. Intuition operates in this area (and can just as often be wrong as right but
we often forget the 'wrong' moments :-))
Dream analysis seems to favour the determination of 'the point' but ignores the possibility of there being NO POINT;
a random firing process, elicited by a lack of control in the form of 'correct/incorrect' determinations, can create
a relational pattern that seems meaningful but is not. (see the mathematical concept of Markov
Chains). Due to our adaptions we are driven to identify and this can take us into all sorts of problem spaces
if we are not discerning enough about our distinctions of what is 'real' and what is not. (see Monty Pythons "Life
of Brian" for examples of enforced determination of meaning)
How does psychoanalysis address these concepts? Freud lacked knowledge on the neurological processes behind
dreams and as such could be seen to be just as myth oriented as those he mentions in his introduction to dreams
("On Dreams" 1901) where he states:
"During the epoch which may be described as pre-scientific, men had no difficulty in finding explanations
for dreams. When they remembered a dream after waking-up, they regarded it as either a favourable or hostile manifestation
by higher powers, daemonic and divine. When modes of thought belonging to natural science began to flourish, all
this ingenious mythology was transformed into psychology, and to-day only a small minority of educated people doubt
that dreams are a product of the dreamer's own mind."
He then goes on to write that:
"Popular opinion...is not concerned to the source of dreams; it seems to persist in the belief that nevertheless
dreams have a meaning, which relates to the prediction of the future and which can be discovered by some process
of interpretation of a content which is often confused and puzzling."
and he then states:
"One day I discovered to my great astonishment that the view of dreams which come nearest to the truth
was not the medical but the popular one, half-involved though it still was in superstition."
What is suggested here is that the neurological processes are being used for divination; just as animal entrails,
rune stones, yarrow sticks and star signs are used in that they serve as a context within which meaning is projected.
In this sense dreams themselves are meaningless in the literal sense (the medical sense that Freud mentions) but
are useful as metaphors.
As is the case with Astrology etc problems come when things are taken literally (and we enter the world of potential
psychosis.).
It is noteworthy that right-brained thinking is biased to dealing with:
(a) What COULD have been.
(b) What is NOT.
(c) What could be.
BUT rooted in a sense of the 'everyday', AS-IS. There is a strong dynamic element here.
whereas the left is more biased to:
(a) What WAS.
(b) What IS.
(c) What WILL BE.
BUT rooted in a sense of the exaggerated, AS-INTERPRETED. There is a strong static element here.
We can see here the two types of dream with REM being closer to the former than the latter and Freud's comments
on popular opinion "which relates to the prediction of the future" easily linked to right-brain processes
(as in 'what could be').
Freud is saying that he is attracted more to the right-brained than the left (the left BTW is also linked to psychosis
as compared to the relational brain more linked to neurosis, the latter being Freud's preferred area of operation.)
This attraction suggests an attraction to what is behind things as well as the ego/superego realm; methods of id
control/guidance.
The 'scientific' aspects of psychoanalysis are the determination of algorithms and formulas that lead to an expression,
the discovery of the rules and regulations that are guiding/controlling expression and the 'correction' of these
if the expression is deemed socially 'inappropriate'. There is a potential problem in that since we are dealing
with relational space so the possibility of a 'no point' relationship is rejected.
The insistance on there always being meaning, as we find in all other divination methods, cuts-off the concept
of random processes and that alone reduces psychoanalysis in power; it makes psychoanalysis NON scientific since
it excludes properties that are inherant in the world it tries to deal with. For something to be a science you
need to include randomness as a feature; something a strictly relational process finds hard to deal with since
in that space everything HAS to have meaning. The detection of random processes is biased to object thinking, left
brained processes and this incorporates the psychotic where there is no social 'meaning' present other than the
term 'psychosis' which shares space with the concept of 'randomness'. (But then note that psychosis links to instinctive
behaviours which in the eyes of the universe are 'normal'.)
It can be said that Science 'cuts off' properties in its world, reflecting the isolationist perspective, the idealism
needed for 'dot' precision, but I do not think this is so in that science is continuing to try and understand such
concepts as emotion, religion, randomness etc etc and is thus still developing whereas divination systems have
their set of objects that are 'fixed' and emphasise the infinite relationships between them ignoring 'new' data.
For the I Ching or Astrology there are sets of symbols that form the communications space (as we see in Jung etc
with archetypal forms. I think Freud/Lacan etc applied the relational bias where even these change and so there
are no 'rigid' archetypes other than the concepts of ID, EGO, SUPEREGO; the dominant emphasis is on relational
space where there are always meanings and a dynamic. Of note is that it is from relational space that transformations
can occur even if illusions -- but then dreams can do that :-))
Reflecting on the above comments regarding the right brain, manifesting relational space, always finding meaning,
we note that this brain deals with relationships and so everything is seen as tied together and there is always
something 'behind' if you cannot find something 'up front'. Due to the nature of this brain so there are no exceptions
to this. Everything has a meaning. end of story.
In the context of metaphor and REM dreams this implication is that the right brain processes, in the context
of ANALYSIS, is operating in a SECONDARY state, it is operating AFTER an identification has taken place. However,
in the case of dreams the left brain that is the more tailored to precision and so identifying 'this from that'
is 'asleep'.The analytical focus requires refined differentiation and that is a 'left brain' concept. With REM
the left is 'asleep' and all that is left is the more general integrating right, biased to deriving meaning by
approximations - linking patterns into an implication of 'something'. As such some 'right brain' work DOES serve
to integrate events of the waking state BUT there are also dreams that distinctly lack any 'logic' of the waking
state.
All metaphor requires that there be something to metaphor. (metaphor as noun --- to metaphor as verb) If I cut
off this ability, the ability to determine 'correct/incorrect' and so distinctions of 'causal/random', then the
secondary system, a system that *assumes* 'correct' (or assumes 'as is' and so no judgement) will continue to function
(reacting to possible 'noise') and with 'novel' outcomes. Note that in development the right reflects more the
'everyday' but at such a general level it lacks precision such that our recognition of 'precision' is rooted in
the more 'idealist' perspectives of the left.
From studies in language using ideograms we know that unknown ideograms will elicit RIGHT brain function as the
brain tries to see the ideogram in relation to immediate context to then aid in identification. Once a relationship
(a particular) has been determined we see a shift 'left' in analysis towards the 'known' but there has to be an
initial process, a primary process in which I am considering a particular ideogram and the particularisation process
is dominated by LEFT brain functions. This 'isolation' reflects deeper processes that act to INTERGRATE all sensory
data to allow for the DIFFERENTIATION of the particular; we see 'oscillations' at different neurocognitive levels.
This emphasis on secondary vs primary is tied to the observed path of analysis where we take the whole, as yet
undifferentiated and so 'raw', and analyse it. This step manifests the initial determination of value as in 'in
this WORTH analysis'. Do I 'know' this and if I dont do I need to? (In passing note that identity seekers, manifestations
of right brained thinking are totally trusting in others. It is as if 'others' have been approved and so there
is no doubt about letting them in).
IN Freud's thinking, as well as people such as Lacan, Charles Peirce, Karl Popper etc we find this development
path in analysis where we move from the particular to the general (relational). This emphasis starts with a 'what'
and then considers 'where', to analyse we analyse 'something'.
In other articles at these sites I have emphasised that the point nature of the left is complemented by the field
nature of the right. I have also stressed that at the initial level of analysis where we shift from single context
to multi contexts so we use analogies and dichotomies where the latter move from oppositional types to cooperational
types, we start to recognise that the more 'left' element in the dichotomy is not an opposite of the right, but
an exaggeration of the right.
In the analysis/synthesis dichotomy we see cooperational types in that analysis reflects the journey from one
to many and synthesis from many to one BUT the directions are NOT on the same levels. Synthesis operates/starts
in relational space and allows for an upwards movement leading to a precise assertion (e.g. a word to identify
a set of relationships) and so a shift 'left'. Analysis also operates/starts in object space but moves downwards
where the word/object dissolves into the context, returns to be the sum of relationships. Both analysis/synthesis
are secondary in that there must be something around to analyse/synthesise.
Dream interpretation tries to work with 'the many' to derive a 'one'. In doing so it is working in a relational
space that does not necessarily have any contact with 'the one' and so works in synthesis mode where aspects are
summed to try and create a 'resonance' with one's waking life. But this can include total illusions which due to
wish fulfilements etc can become beliefs. Dreams to be made into reality regardless of cost and amongst these illusions
can be ones that appear 'out of nowhere' with NO meaning at all just a pattern of meaning created randomly. Randomness
is a PRIMARY concept in that it is part of the initial 'worth of analysis/not worthy', determinations performed
by the LEFT and so missing in dreams in that all dreams are interpreted as being 'meaningful'....
When you cut-off the primary and over emphasise the secondary you can dissapear into a ga-ga land of infinite
aspectual analysis; an over emphasis on harmonics. In dream analysis the 'idea' is to try and determine the primary,
the 'core' subject that is being metaphorised. If the primary is not functioning, either from neurological or psychological
causes or both, then all output of the secondary system is illusion/delusion; as I emphasised, processing inherant
in the neurology etc forces the secondary to believe that there is *always* 'a meaning' present. It is not possible
for the secondary to consider the fact that the data received is 'noise' produced as a consequence of a non-functioning/dis-functioning
primary.
In music, the first note is usually determined as the key, the tonic. This primary identification creates the 'universe
of discourse' for the playing of harmonics. It is not usually possible to cut off this identification process,
as it is not possible to cut off the initial identification of 'an object' which then becomes the source for harmonics
analysis (in our use of metaphors to describe 'the object').
However it IS possible to 'start in the wrong key'. This is a process that works with a little bit of feedback
based on past experience, thus the first time experience cannot make this distinction but all other times it can.
IF I lose this identification ability, this primary process, then what follows is 'illusion'. This initial distinction
of 'correct/incorrect' aka 'right/wrong' is a left 'brain' process and the secondary processes totally trust this
process such that when presented with something to analyse, the secondary processes assume that 'something' is
true and worthy of analysis.
There IS a 'point' that starts off analysis, the playing with harmonics etc, and it is from neuropsychological
reduction that enables us to solve the puzzles of information processing 'in here' The reductionism also points
to potential misconceptions and demonstrates how life responds to ANY information and if not filtered (as done
by the correct/incorrect distinction making process) determination of meaning can dissapear into ga-ga land where
fact and fiction are mixed such that you cannot differentiate one from the other.
To then formalise these processes, to create a discipline based on dream analysis and include in that discipline
the exclusion of considering random processes, leads to the creation of a discipline that is 'illusion' and cannot
be classified as scientific (even though the methods try to be). This illusion can be the source of cultural development
but it is still illusion and the problems come when this is not recognised, the problems come when the illusions
are interpreted as fact. In this context Psychoanalysis falls into the same categorisation as Astrology, Tarot
etc etc
All of these disciplines DO create a sense of meaning but it is (a) metaphor rather than fact and (b) potentially based on random processes and so not 'meaningful' other than the projections we make or more so the particular discipline makes, since it is tied to the fundamental distinction (falsely made) that 'everything has meaning'.