| "Each time you say what a dream means, you get your face slapped."
James Hillman |
o Preamble
There has been a growing suspicion and critique
of Reason and Rationality in the last century that was pre-figured with
the Romantics, given its first technique of investigation with ideas of
the unconscious and then fearfully brought into the mainstream culture
with the advent of the atomic bomb. The cold war kept us in America believing
it was only the Communist who were irrational and needed to be controlled
and contained. By the end of the 1960's the rational policies of containment,
mutually assured destruction and the cold war were exposed as paranoid
delusions. The peace movement, grassroots coalition, novel social contacts,
psychotherapies and ecologically minded living offered contact with a productive
irrationality. Some felt we just matured in our ideas of what is rational,
but others began seeing rationality itself as the culprit.
The pragmatic critique of the Modern World has continued in the America
and produced fabulous responses in architecture (i.e. insides of building
found on the outside), politics (i.e. grassroots movements) , law (i.e.
extreme reform), therapy(i.e. contact with irrational), science (i.e. chaos
theory) and alternative culture( i.e. cyberspace). In Europe, the critique
has been more intellectual and has produced an even wide variety of social,
philosophical, literary and political responses. Generally these critiques,
responses and new productions are often called "Postmodern",
"Postmodernity" and "Postmoderism", but I want to note
that there is no one movement or set of ideas that contain the postmodern.
Many would argue that it has nothing to do with the move from rational
to irrational.
In this month's Postmodern Dreaming column I would like to give a
quick general introduction to the postmodern and how it differs from the
Modern and suggest what it might have to do with dreams and dreaming. Later
articles will then wander organically, if not randomly, through the Postmodern
ideas, reading them together with dreams and dreaming ideas in hopes of
producing new concepts, ideas and practices that might enrich both. References
and suggestions for other texts and articles are highly recommended for
a more complete introduction.
o Forward into the Past
It has been of interest to me for some time that there are a great
many parallels between the history of the interpretation of literature/poetry/texts
and the history of the interpretation of dreams. Like dreams, early sacred
texts were seen as sacred and messages from the gods. While this view continues
even today, new streams formed and diverged. The author's intention, what
the author meant to say, was seen as important. Others began to view the
text separately from the author and saw the meaning resting in the reader's
response. Others found the meaning by looking closely at the structure
and context of the text, seeking both the archetypal and social forces
at play. This sequence follows quite closely the ways of interpreting dreams.
By the 1960's it seemed that all the ways of interpreting a text
had been played out and there was nothing much left to do but catagorize
these elements. Then a post-modern revolution occurred. Some anticipated
it coming. In dreaming Jung, and later James Hillman, began talking about
something irrational in the dream image that needed to be encountered to
avoid getting stuck in dead categories. They knew that only a break with
old patterns offered new pathways. And they knew that archetypes were not
just stereotypes. Encounters with the numinous core could strip away old
neurosis and open the door to the unrealized. Had the postmodern revolution
occurred first in Switzerland, it may have been very different.
In France psychoanalysis was slow to take hold, being seen as a German
Project in the irrational. The French considered themselves as coming from
the rational tradition of Rousseau. By 1940s and 1950 things began to shift.
The Literary Left tended towards Marxism and the structuralist projects
of Levi-Strauss in anthropology and Jacques Lacan in psychoanalysis had
taken shape. In 1968 the country (France) was temporarily shut down by
a country wide walk-off of workers and students, backed by the French-Marxist
who were at the time denied any political power. But within days the Marxist
representatives had traded most of their political positions for government
positions and the country was up and running, except for the intellectual
Left who felt betrayed and now drifted away from Marxism. It was clear
that even the most radical of political groups could be tamed and dominated
by the seduction of power. Perhaps, it was thought, that organization itself
if the culprit. In literature, philosophy, critical theory, linguistics,
psychology, leftist politics and art a radical departure from the values
of the past was in the making. This departure was so powerful that a lecture
by Jacques Derrida in America in the 1960's lead to a widespread movement
of American Deconstruction in literature, philosophy and law. But the intellectual
aspects of the movement remained in America mostly in academic, and it
wasn't until the advent of the Net that the ideas became more widely disseminated.
The implications for interpretation, of dreams and text, as well
as politics, religion, recreation, sex, identity, psychology, play and
other social practices are so strange and uncanny that Americans have barely
begun to grasp their theoretical implications and significance. This may,
as some suggest, be because we already act out so many of the postmodern
paradigms anyway, even if without the intellectual baggage. We tend to
*make* and *do* things in America. Again, the Internet may be *the* postmodern
expression, with emphasis on dissemination, multiple identities, unrecoverable
authors, multiple levels of meaning, social practices crossing boundaries
and categories once thought to be in-violate, the championing of the particular,
organic-order, non-hierarchical, non-human, fluid, linguistic, textual
and graphical, and metamorphic.
How like the dream. And here I hope to read dreams through the lens
created by postmodern writers. The purpose is not to break down the illusions
of the past views in hopes of recovering some hidden truth. Rather the
hope is more that these lenses (themselves fictions) we will use for temporary
viewing, will move us towards fictions we find more significant, more meaningful,
or even to those categories beyond meaning and significance that cannot
be named. To move not towards the dream, as if it would finally open up
and reveal its secrets, but with the dream, as a co-player in the creation
of the improvisational universe that lives between reality and fiction.
I would recommend having one or more dreams at hand as you read through the history I have presented below on dreams and the postmodern. How does each approach change your relationship with the dream image? What does each approach offer or promise? What does each approach tell you about *what* you are interpreting when you do dreamwork? What does each approach say about who the author of the dream might be, and what the author's intentions are? Who is the reader? How much of these questions and answers are dependent on the language we are using?
o The History of the Interpretive Response
There is a correspondence, or at least, strong parallels between
the history of literary interpretation and the interpretation of dreams.
The earliest writings include the recording of dreams and their interpretations
in Sumerian cuneiform tablets. In these writings, it is assumed that the
author of the dream is a god and the the dream is a message to the dreamer.
The dreamer, like many a scribe, are seem merely as conduits of the divine
or demonic.
And the study of the interpretation of sacred texts, hermeneutics
(HERmenOOtiks) which originally referred to theories of biblical interpretations,
later came to refer to the theory of interpretation in general. The center
of hermeneutics is the belief that the text contains a stable meaning that
can be determined and possibly recovered. This was first extended from
religious texts to legal, historical, bibliographic and literary texts,
but by the 19th Century had been extended to all works in the
humanities and social sciences. From this emerged the idea of what is now
called "Authorial Intention". Here, the meaning of the text has
to do with the author's attempt to use commonly know language to produce
a meaning. The recovery of the meaning is found in forming a hypothesis
about the author's meaning and attempting to confirm or invalidate this
by continual reference to the text.
In Psychoanalysis, the true meaning of the dream text was arrived
at by a close reading as well. Results of Free association we added to
the patients clinical material and historical background to discover the
true meaning of the dream, the true unconscious intentions.
These ideas carried on into the middle of the 20th Century.
By the 1940's an 50's, this interpretive text approach was giving
way to New Criticism. There was a shift from history and content to form.
At the heart of this approach was the autonomous *image* in the text, independent
of the author. The image, such as a poem, could now be analyzed at several
levels, the particular image (or poetic line), the genre, or the place
in literature in general. The old focus on the intentions of the author
were seen now as guilty of committing the "intentional fallacy"(Wimsatt
& Beardsley 1954) which sees the appeal to an author's designs as irrelevant
to the autonomous structure of a text. Who can really know the author's
intention? Perhaps even the author him/herself may not really understand
the motives and intentions that went into text.
Conflicts and resolutions in the text were seen as the guiding path
into the texts, with the focus on coherence and internal tension. Universal
collective patterns were found, and as Kugler (1987) has noted, this literary
style reflects more Jung's approach to dreams. The focus on image patterns,
the move to deeper collective themes, the discovery of paradox and reconciliation,
and the ultimate belief in the coherence and unity of the psyche were as
important to Jung as the New Critics.
Now all these style have been called into question. Not only authorial
intention, but the texts unity, autonomy and ability to reveal some referential
truth have been seriously questioned. The first new trend to emerge out
of all this doubt was called Structuralism.
o Structuralism
Structuralism is a complex intellectual movement that became important
in France about 1950, and included such works as that of anthropologist
Claude Levi-Strauss, Literary Critic Roland Barthes and psychoanalyist
Jacques Lacan. By the 1970's there influence was considerable in England
and the United States. The roots of Structuralism are diverse, but usually
traced to the Swiss linguist, Fredinand de Saussure (1857-1913) and his
theory of language as based on a system of internal differences rather
than in resemblances to objects in the material world.
- Signifier - The acoustic sound or material written word
Sign =
- Signified - The concept to which the signifier refers.
Language, and thus the text and dreams made up of language, are seen as
closed, culture bound systems. This new science of linguistics , Semiology,
would study all of the signs that make up a culture, their nature, their
laws. A key to understanding this systems approach is the idea of words
or signs as having both a signifier and a signified. The signifier is the
word itself, like "tree". The signifier is seen as arbitrary.
I could have used arbre in French, dendro in Greek , silvus in Latin. Or
"tree" in English might have not ended up as "tree"
but rather "oglot" and we would have all gotten by just fine.
And know when someone says "tree" it is "tree" because
the way it sounds is *different* than "me", "free",
"treat" and so on. Thus the material acoustic sound "tree"
is unique because it is surrounded by a whole system of differences. Try
describing any object-word in your room, a desk, a chair, a door, without
referring to how it is different from another object and you will quickly
see how difference plays an essential key.
Now each word or sign also points to something beyond itself. In normal usage we talk about what the word refers to, a particular tree in material reality. But as a sign, it also points to a concept, (as in the concept of "trees") and this is called by Saussure the "signifed". We can think of the signified as the concept or idea that a community of speakers associate with the sound or written word. And again, the relationship between the signified and the signifier is arbitrary as well. Saying "Tree" in one culture may refer to the concept of "Bringing me some fish!"
The point of all this was to constuct a view of language not tied
to material objects. The rules are inherent in the structure of the parts.
Just like a chess or checkers game, the pieces could all look very different,
as long as the underlying structure of the game remained the same. The
authors intention (the inventor of chess), the historical shapes of the
pieces and the materials they are made up of take a back seat to the rules
of the game.
o Structuralism at Work
By the early 1950's and 1960's people such as Roland Barths and Claude Levi-Strauss had extended Saussure's semiological approach to anthropology, literature and culture in general. In the new interpretive vision, the sign's ability to reflect or mirror nature and the human psyche gave way to the study of how the words and images work as a system of structural relations.
In 1949, Levi-Strauss reformulated Freud's unconscious into two parts,
the subconscious and the unconscious. The Subconscious is much like Jung's
personal unconscious, and Freud's unconscious, full of psychic substances,
memories & imagos, and associations collected during the course of
life. The Unconscious was (structurally) more like Carl Jung's Collective
Unconscious, devoid of images and full of structural laws. Levi-Strauss
saw the personal subsconsious like the personal words & pieces of life
gathered, while the structural unconscious is what really creates the rules
that the pieces play out in life.
By 1953, French psychotherapist Jacques Lacan adopts this idea of
the unconscious as full of rules, processes and structural strategies and
proposes a three part psychic system, the Real, the Symbolic and the Imaginary.
"The object as such, attempting to be know" is the Real. We only
experience this indirectly. The representations of the object constitute
the Imaginary. The Symbolic is more structural and organizes representations
into meaningful images. The self for Lacan is a linguistic construction.
Language here is extended to mean any psychic capacity for representation.
In the act of representation we can represent ourselves thus creating self
awareness. However, this ability to represent divides us into a self that
experiences and a self that represents what it experiences. The experiential
self on one hand is only known because we can represent it, ("I"),
but at the same time separate from those representations and excluded from
the common world we all share through language/representations. This exclusion
leads to an unconscious order of existence, which may be seen as all our
unmediated experience.
The structuralist project focused on these representational realms
and worked toward developing an objective science of interpretation, capable
of revealing the symbolic structures underlying all narratives. But by
the 1970's even the main proponents of the movement were beginning to questions
the usefulness and desirability of extracting a collection of abstract
rules in every narrative and text. Essentially, the text, once categorized
and filed in the place of all the narratives, loses its uniqueness and
its difference.
o Post-structuralism
A new movement was arising that was to shun the search for structural similarities between texts.
This post-structural movement found its root influences in such thinkers
as Hegel, Nietzsche and Jacques Derrida. The key idea was a suspicion of
any project of interpretation that tried to ground itself in an absolute,
such as truth, reality, self, center, unity, origin and even author.
Whenever we have a set of rules or system, there is always a grand ole idea that stands outside of the structure and informs it, though the grand ole idea is always itself outside of explanation. Derrida point out in a seminal lecture (Derrida, 1966) an example of how these ultimate first principles work in removing themselves temporally, either ahead or behind of the system they explain. An example with dreams would be the theories that posit anterior causes, such as biochemistry, drives, family, trauma, childhood and day residue. All explanation in these systems refer to an event in the past that caused the dream, but is itself never questioned. Or
the dream is posited as moving forward in time towards ultimates such as Self, Wholeness, Unity, Death and God. To work, the principles have to be removed and the status has to be different.
These transcendental god-terms function as the lynch-pins for the
entire Western theory of interpretation.
Derrida points out these are not grand eternal structures we assign
to them, but linguistic by products of a naively representational view
of language. These terms are... fictions. Useful, but none the less made
up. There is no language that is literal, even science. It is all metaphorical.
All language is ironic, both revealing and at the same time concealing.
Even dream interpretation systems that simple describe the dream
images (such as versions of the Phenomenological approach), certain terms
will be literalized and given a privileged status, and all the rest of
the terms in the system will revolve around this term and refer to it.
Notice in dream theory how these terms are privileged: wish, oedipus complex,
archetypes, drives, phallus, desire, imagination, self, repression, compensation.
One term is seen as the orgin, such as the Jungian Self, or in Freud, the
drives.
Try raising the question of origins without thinking about the origin
of *that* origin. It is next to impossible. "Origin" is now the
transcendental term and all further thinking about it will refer to it,
though it remains outside interpretation itself. Origin now explains everything
but itself.
Now this dissatisfaction with central explanatory principles was
not new to the Post-structuralists. Nietzsche had been working on this
"god is dead" theme since the end of the last century. The post-structural
addition extends this idea to language and begins to show how hidden in
everyday language, this first principle still exists. As Gilles Deleuze
said, all words point to Pharaoh, meaning that there is inherent in our
language the implication of center to which it is all referring. And yet
linguistically, we never reach that center. Instead there a hole in the
center of the universe. Those with faith or a flair for gnostic or mystic
contact can say the hole is not empty in the way an atheistic approach
might have it, but this must always be either private experience and or
belief. Shamanistic approaches try to bridge this gap by providing mediating
and initiatory experiences for the sake of the seeker, but these generally
lie outside of the realm of interpretative theory and are based on relationships
of trust between shaman and initiate, or teacher and student, or guru and
disciple.
The shift from structural to post-structural interpretation is that
of seeing the text as a closed unity with decipherable meaning to viewing
the text as irreducibly plural, swinging from literal to metaphorical significance(s)
which can never be fixed to a single center, unity or meaning. When we
are aware that the theories by which we see the world are just that, theories,
then we can pick and choose among them. When we forget that they are theories,
then they become more unconscious and begin to structure our views, fooling
us and tell us that they are really real. As James Hillman has pointed
out, dreams are so wonderful a teacher in this area, because during a dream
we realize that we are in the image, the image is not in us.
Does this all sound a bit like Nietzsche and the death of god? It
should as Derrida and the other post structural thinkers are all profound
readers of Nietzsche. Not only is the idea of a center looked at with suspicion,
but all structure is seen as founded on an untenable paradox found in all
Western Metaphysics. And yet there is no call to despair. Though the origin
cannot be recovered, the awareness of this leads to a particular kind of
freedom, what Derrida calls "freeplay"
Since these early days of Derrida, many thinkers made the poststructural shift, including Julia Kristeva & Jacques Lacan in psychoanalysis, Michel Foucault and Michel de Certeau in history, Jean Francois Lyotard and Gilles Deleuze in cultural-political critique and oodles of others in literary and aesthetic criticism. Though each has his/her own unique contribution, the was a general abandonment of explanation of meaning via first causes, origins and orders based on binary oppositions. The idea that there was even a single "me" or "you" was abandoned as well. The idea of a single text is replaced by the word "discourse" generally meaning that anything longer than a sentence erupts into history, breaks into contexts, decenters the subject and distributes a continual flow of meaning. (How like the dream.).
Even the concept of "man" or "Humanity" becomes
a linguistic construct. We have no nature, or more properly, to speak of
our Nature is to get caught up in the linguistic binary game of what is
nurture, what is nature, and thus it has no meaning outside of this game.
All universals that are posited as valid fall into this new paradox.
While this movement was highly involved in linguistic critiques of
social and political practices, showing how language figures in the construction
of the possibilities of meaning and reality, the larger cultural movement,
postmodernism has extended itself into and beyond these initial linguistic
and social critiques to include the signyfying practices of the culture
at large. In literature, the writer may have the text become self conscious
and have the text converse with the story itself. In architecture, what
is usually seen only inside a building might be found on the outside. The
general significance of the postmodern spills out into the streets and
is as relevant there as with the avant-garde. (How like the Dream)
o Sign of the Times
Increasingly important in Postmodern thought is the Sign in Culture. The social order shifts from
productive to reproductive, and simulations and models of reality
begin to replace what was once thought to be real. The differences between
appearance and reality fade. Representation is replaced by presentation.
Singularity of truth is replaced by plurality of viewpoint. Lyotard speaks
about the grand narratives being replaced by more local accounts of reality.
Just as the emphasis in structuralism moved the attention away from the
concrete object to the objects sign, the postmodern continues to move the
attention away from the signified (concept) to the signifier or the signifiying
act. Like an improvisational jazz movement or a rock and roll concert,
the meanings may swirl around the event, but the focus is on the instrumentality
or acoustic materiality of the moment.
o Dreams and the Postmodern: A brief account to date
There have been a few attempts by dream theorists to move dreamwork and dreaming into the postmodern, but these are mostly scattered talks and texts. In 1989, Harry Hunt's book the Multiplicity of Dreams was published. In this close examination of the coginitive science of dreaming, Hunt revealed how bias of perspectives also bias the not only the interpretation of empirical results, but choice of the objects of study and the funding as well. Hunt also recognized the core of dreaming as "exterioriz(ing) the processes of cross-modal synesthetic translation and mutual reorganization that may constitute the core of all symbolic intelligence." (Hunt 1989 206).
Here the process of cross-modal synesthetic (hearing colors, tasting sounds) translation and mutual reorganization refers to a post-representational presentation in which meaning is generated in the freeplay of being, becoming and re-becoming. Bert States, in his book _the Rhetoric of Dreams_ explores Dreams and the Freudian Primary Process, (the dream-work of displacement, symbolization, condensation and so on) in literary terms of Irony and other metaphoric shifts brought about by language. Paul Kugler, a Jungian (post-jungian?) and Gordon Globus have both given presentations at the Association for the Study of Dreams on the postmodern and dreams. Kugler attempts to question the limits of dream theory as we move from the modern to the postmodern. Kugler asks of any dream interpretation:
Where is the dream being literal, and where is it being figurative? To what does the dream refer, the inner world, the outer world, or is it self-referential? Who is the author of the dream, biology, a wish, a desire, a deity, or is there no author? How do we develop a dream theory that is itself self conscious? That is, capable of carrying an awareness of its own figural aspects and assumptions? ( its own unconsciousness?). Gordon Globus has been attempting to construct a connectionists theory of mind/brain and apply this to dreaming as a way to move into viewing dreaming without getting caught up in representational thought. In his Neural Net theory, the brain flows, and in this flow of interactive influences there are valleys and hills that we settle for a few moments and experience one of many possible worlds. Dreaming is simply the flow of these neural nets without the constraints of outer stimulation. James Hillman has also attempted to view dreams without importing theories from the past and his _Dreams and the Underworld_ creates a bridge between the structural projects of Jung and the Postmodern psychoanalytic theories that remove the idea of the Self as a central organizing principle to open the individual to a specturm of archetypal influences which may play out on a larger cultural theatre than the therapist's couch.
However, the most explosive and creative venue for postmodern dreaming
has been the Internet. Some ideas are more apparent than others. The ideas
of the pre-commercial Net have influenced contemporary Late 90's Cyberspace,
which include sharing of resources, the acceptance of multiple identities,
the encouragement toward the non-familiar, the cooperative spirit of helping
one another get these ideas up and out to the public, general trust of
chaos and anarchy and relationships bonded by mutual interest rather than
coercions. Though most of these concepts have collapsed under the proprietary
territorializations of the commercial networks, they are the backdrop that
have provided support to what I'm calling America's Postmodern Dreaming
in Cyberspace. Here the multiple forms of trans categorical presentation
erupt in ever new forms. Typically we catagorize them, dream art, dream
work, dream sharing, dream science, lucid dreaming, shamanic dreaming,
spiritual dreaming, journey dreaming, psychic dreaming, dream journals,
dreams comments, dream inspired poetry and so on. But these dream eruptions
generally defy any classification and break many boundaries. At one moment
a dream is a journal entry, the next a discussion between people from around
the world in a simulated virtual room. Later a picture emerges on a Web
site and it is linked to the sleep research laboratories in Cincinnati.
An individual following this path may be involved in the meaning of the
dream, but they are also involved in the track of the dream, the medium
of the text in a chat room, in an email, and on the Web, as a gif or jpeg.
This, I feel, has been America's contribution to the Postmodern, a computer
mediated anarchical network of discourse vibrating with the eruptions onto
its virtual surface.
What seems to be missing is a reading together of the pragmatic American know-how with the Continental discourses on theory. Instead of using new ideas to explain the meaning of what we have done, the idea here is to use the ideas to further what has been done, to break through old concepts and restrictions of the real, to reach, as the surrealist call it, the Surreal.
In dreamwork online we have in many ways already achieved postmodern
status. The identity of the player is always in flux and there is an emphasis
on play itself as important. We often acknowledge the inability to establish
the meaning of a dream for another subject, and thereby all agree from
the start that all meanings are really our own. A dream might mean a life
style change to one participant, while another may build a new community,
another take on social injustice. We are deeply aware in the late 20th
Century of all the ephemerality, fragmentation, discontinuity and chaos.
To move into the postmodern is not to transcend this, nor to counteract
it, nor even to find the eternal elements in it. Rather, we learn to swim
in it, to wallow, to witness as if that is all there is, Samsara is Nirvana.
Thus, this column plans no particular direction or schedule. At this moment
it appears there is a postmodern attitude, but this may change. Deleuze
suggests to 'develop actions, though and desires by proliferation, juxtaposition,
and disjunction," and "to prefer what is positive and multiple,
difference over uniformity, flows over unities, mobile arrangements over
systems. Believe that what is productive is not sedentary but nomadic."
(Preface, Anti-Oedipus).
How like the dream.
-Richard Wilkerson, May 1997
If you are interested in learning more about Postmodern(ism)? I have set up an index site to online texts. I recommend first reading the alt.postmodern faq file.
www.dreamgate.com/pomo/
Beginning Book Suggestions: (by priority )
+Sarup, Madan (1989). _An Introductory Guide to Post-Structrualism and Postmodernism_. Athens, GA:University of Georgia
[Best all around short introduction to the postmodern]
+Best, S. & Kellner, D. (1991). _Postmodern Theory: Critical Interrogations_. New York: The Guilford Press.
[an overview of the postmodern from the Jump--Right-In school. Some generalizations may be confusing and the use of language and style often needs more investigation]
+Berman, Art (1988). _From the New Criticism to Deconstruction: the reception of Structuralism and Post-Structuralism_. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[a very good analysis of the American Reception to poststructuralism and its influences. Tends towards literary and philosophical types, misses a lot of the cultural stuff]
Adams, Hazard & Searle, Leroy (1986) _Critical Theory Since 1965_. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University Press.
[for the history of interpretation this is a great sampling, with some introduction to dozens of prominent and classical texts in critical literature]
+Harraway, Donna(1980) "A Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the 1980s" (Linda J. Nicholson, ed. *Feminism/Postmodernism*. NY: Routledge, 1980, pp. 190-233)
[This seminal essay is a must for everyone in cyberspace. Suggestions for how the mix of technology and humanity will break down both categories and re-assemble a more even playing field for women and other repressed minorities].
Anderson, Water Truett (1995). _The Truth about Truth: De-confusiong and Re-constructiong the Postmodern World_. New York, NY: Jeremy P. Tarcher
[A collection of quick takes on the postmodern from a wide variety of authors]
Leitch, Vincent B. (1983). _Deconstructive Criticism_ New York:Columbia University Press.
[an overview of deconstruction in literary theory - assumes reader
has some familiarity with a pre-deconstructive philosophy and theory]
++Adams, Hazard & Searle, Leroy (1986) _Critical Theory Since 1965_. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University Press.
++Anderson, Water Truett (1995). _The Truth about Truth: De-confusiong and Re-constructiong the Postmodern World_. New York, NY: Jeremy P. Tarcher
++ Barthes, Roland (1977). The Death of the Author. In Image, Music, text. Trans Stephen Heath. New York: Hill and Wang.
++Berman, Art (1988). _From the New Criticism to Deconstruction: the reception of Structuralism and Post-Structuralism_. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
++Best, S. & Kellner, D. (1991). _Postmodern Theory: Critical Interrogations_. New York: The Guilford Press.
++Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1983). _Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia._ Minneapolis: Univ. of Minn Press. Originally Published as _L'Anti-Oedipe_, 1972 Les Editions De Minnuit
++Derrida, Jacques (1966). Structure, sign, and play in the discourse of the human sciences. In _The Strucuralist Controversy_, Richard Macksey and Eugenio Donato, eds. 1972, The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Also available in (1991/1972). Structure sign and play in the discourse of the human sciences. _Criticism: Major Statements_, 3rd editon Charles Kaplan and William Anderson (eds) New York: St Martin's Press pp. 513-534 SF PN 81 .c85 1991
reprinted from Richard Macksey & Eugenio Donato (eds)(1972). The Structuralist Controversy. John Hopkins University Press.
++ Foucault, Michel (1977). What is an Author? In language, counter-memory,
Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews. Trans. Donald F Bouchard and
Sherry Simon. Ithica, NY: cornell Univ. Press.
++Harraway, Donna(1980) "A Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the 1980s" (Linda J. Nicholson, ed. *Feminism/Postmodernism*. NY: Routledge, 1980, pp. 190-233)
++Hillman, James (1979). Dreams and the Underworld. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.
--------. (1979). Image-Sense. Spring, 130-143.
--------. (1978). Further notes on images. Spring, 152-182.
--------. (1977). An inquiry into image. Spring, pp. 62-88. ++Hillman, James (1973). The dream and the underworld. Eranos, 42 237-319.
++Hillman, James & Roscher, W. H. (1988). Pan and the Nightmare. Dallas: Spring Publications, Inc.
++Hunt, Harry (1989). The Multiplicity of Dreams: Memory, Imagination and Consciousness. New Haven: Yale University Press.
++Globus, Gordon G. (1993). Connectionism and sleep. In A. Moffitt, M. Kramer, R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Functions of Dreaming. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
--------. (1992) Toward a noncomputational cognitive neuroscience. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 4(4), 299-310.
--------. (1991). Dream content: Random or meaningful? Dreaming, 1(1), 27-40.
--------. (1989). Connectionism and the dreaming mind. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 10(2). 179-196.
--------. (1988). Existence and the brain. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 9(4). 447-455.
--------. (1987). Dream Life, Wake Life: The Human Condition Through Dreams. Albany: State University of New York Press.
++Kugler, Paul (1987). From Modernism to Postmodernism: Some Implications for a Psychology of Dreams. Presentation at the 1987 Association for the Study of Dreams.
++Lacan, Jacques (1966). The insistence of the letter in the unconscious. Yale French Studies: Structuralism, 36& 37,
pp. 112-147.
--------. (1953-54). The Seminar of Jacques Lacan. Jacques-Alain Miller, (ed). Book I, Freud's Papers on Technique. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [selections on dreams]
++Lakoff, George (1993). How metaphor structures dreams: The theory of conceptual metaphor applied to dream analysis. Dreaming, 3(2), pp. 77-98.
--------. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
++Lakoff, George & Turner, Mark (1989). More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
++Leitch, Vincent B. (1983). _Deconstructive Criticism_ new york:Columbia University Press.
++ Lingis, Alphonso (1988). Deleuze on a deserted island. Chapt. 6 in Silverman, Hugh (ed.) Philosophy and Non-Philosophy since Merleau-Ponty
++ Nietzsche, Frederich (1954). On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense" In The Portable Nietzsche. Trans and ed, Waleter kauffman. New York: Viking.
++Norris, Christopher (1982). Deconstruction: theory and practice. London: Methuen.
++States, Bert O. (1994). Authorship in dreams and fictions. Dreaming, 4(4), 237-253.
--------. (1992). The meaning of dreams. Dreaming, 2(4), 249-262.
--------. (1990). Dreaming and storytelling. The Hudson Review, XLIII(1), 21-37.
--------. (1988). Rhetoric of Dreams. London: Cornell University Press.
[Introduction/Rhetoric and Repression/Metaphor+notes]
--------. (Spring 1986). I think, therefore I dream. The Hudson Review, 39(1), 53-80.
--------. (1983). Dream and memory. Dreamworks, 3(2), 153-159.
--------. (Winter 1978-79). The art of dreaming. The Hudson Review, 31(4), 571-586.
++Wimsatt, W. K. and Beardlsey, Monroe (1954). The Intentional Fallacy. In The Verbal Icon. Lexington: Univ of Kentucky Press