Dream Analysis Part 2: Jung

When undertaking a Jungian analysis then the question that must be asked: "What is the unconscious trying to tell me?" I must consider the dream's symbolism. So I'll start with the location: The school-  authority, learning, and social life. Sue and Jen- Humor, weirdness, and extroversion. Doctor- Knowledge, Religion, Buddhism, Christianity, Science, and Old Times. The weird symbol itself- The empire is a repressive regime with cool looking aesthetics, the rebel cause is about freedom however its a rather quaint bunch of heros (rather traditional, American made), the symbol seems ancient as if I've seen it somewhere before, looks somewhat heart shaped. Tests: Hard, bad, failure, risk, work, systems in the political sense. I think the narrative of the cartoons has been explained (I can't remember anymore than that which I've written down) above all I associate it with Heather.

Maybe Doctor is a wise old man archetype? If so, then he is testing us for some reason. Testing me about love? Maybe this dream is simply making clear to me where I stand with love in my mind. I draw the symbol easily with all its associations. Love looks cool, seems dangerous, yet also carries with it a quaint normalcy which I don't like. The extroverts take a different view of it than me, un-understandable to me yet equally right in the eyes of wisdom. So I work well with the idea of love, yet when faced the actual narrative reality, seeing a reproduction of my real situation with others, of it I am powerless. And what Doctor tells further alerts me to this fact.

I think I got somewhere with that. Next and finally Lacan.

Dream Analysis Part 1: Freud

Dream: I walk into a class room at my school. Two girls who will be called Jen and Sue are there talking to the teacher affectionately known to the school as The Doctor. He says the test is not too hard, though there are some tricky problems. One of the questions on this test appears to be an instruction to draw a symbol. The girls say they can't draw the symbol, they draw it in a weird sideways fashion while I draw it well right side up. They symbol has a curve at the top which connects through a line to some other curves. It reminds me of the Star Wars symbol for the Empire. Doctor says both symbols are acceptable. I sit down to take the rest of the test. The test shows an anime cartoon of about a a love triangle between a girl and two guys. The test then ask questions like: What are these character's relationships? I find the test too hard and ask Doctor what exactly the questions are for? He says he won't tell but that some questions on the test are tricky. I feel a breeze coming from outside the door.

So now I must undertake an analysis of this dream. The first interpretation I will do will be Freudian. I know Jen and Sue were in my class last year with Doctor. Doctor's first class was hard, his second was easy. Doctor is a chemistry and physics teacher. The test will not be to hard but it will present some problems. The first challenge is the symbol. Like in the Prince and the Pauper I draw the symbol right, thus meriting something. But Doctor says both are right. Though I associate the symbol with the Star Wars Empire in the dream, upon reflection it appears to look more like the rebel symbol. The love triangle puzzles me and Doctor won't tell me the answer. 

My associations with Sue and Jen need to be talked about. They are friends with this girl I was thinking of asking out (which is a big deal for me). I also know they don't understand whatever Doctor teaches us. Since the manifest dream content seems to point toward the second, the unconscious meaning must be about the first. This becomes clear when I analyze the rest of the dream. Doctor has several associations for me. He is a spiritual and philosophical man. He had been coaching me on my Heidegger paper, but transfered me because he hated Heidegger's language. He would rant about how our generation was disrespectful and lazy sometimes.

The love triangle. Odd. First the story is presented in an Anime format, the only format that I can tolerate love stories in. My understanding of this is frustrated in the dream I think because in the dream I was think of it as an academic activity. How does one test on that? Yet I face the choice right now in my waking life of throwing myself into a love triangle. The girl (whom we will call Heather) who is friends with Jen and Sue is trying to get my friend to go to the dance with her. He does not want to because she already has a boy friend. The boy friend does not want to the dance and does not mind Heather going with my friend. She doesn't seem to like her boyfriend all that much. I face the choice of throwing myself in the middle of all this, telling Heather if my friend doesn't want to go I'll go. So I must take Sue and Jen as Heather or my relationship with Heather and the love triangle as my situation. Both my symbol and Heather's symbols are right in Doctor's eyes. If I pursue a relationship with Heather (the wrong way according to religious guilty superego) it still fine my dream tells me. And if I choose to not, that's even righter. The dream serves as wish fulfillment in both ways. The test serves as a distraction from this, reminding me that one can't calculate a matter such as this rationally and therefore not to deny the heart. Thus I can be right no matter what I do in relation to Heather. The dream fulfills my wish that I make a satisfying choice regarding Heather not denying my feelings yet also not denying the risks I fear with regard to entering a relationship.

I think I may have done something wrong here but I did the best I could. First time analyzing a dream like this. Next analysis: Jung

Dead and Undead

So I was listening to Zizek and Zizek harkens back to a Kantian idea. The difference between a negative and infinite judgement. "You are dead" negation "You are not dead.". "You are undead." affirmation of a non-predicate. This invokes the infinity of the supernatural. I have always regarded vampires as a symbol of the Anti-life no values nihilism. They feed off life (in the Bible blood is the symbol of life and God's holy gift) yet they are never alive, they only drag other people into their realm of Nonsein (not being). But this a problem because they are are there. They have impact on Dasein. This affirmation of a non-predicate (even though in Kant being is not a predicate, but Heidegger deals with him) gives evil its proper due. It is total defamation of the holy because it has infinite affirmation of the Other. Death is not the other. Death is what God brings to the Other because the Other's existence as a non-predicate. Death is the wages sin pays, and the undead is sin + infinity. Human sins are finite, we have a savior who takes them away. Undead is simply wrong without end unless something else that is infinite takes action through death. This shows the privilege given to God, blood, and humanity. It's the heart of the message. And while this morality seems fascistic, it is also a good defining point if we look at it in a non religious point of view. An interpretation of being that infinitely goes and conquers all must be counter acted by another one that does the same thing yet is privileged by virtue of its primordiality. One that embraces rather than cuts off and separates, that is, discloses more and more rather than covers over.

Possible problems: Where would plurality be in this interpretation I seek? I don't know too much about Derrida, yet I already can tell he would have several issues with my ideas here. A disclaimer is that the Christian remarks I have made were for thought experiment purpose alone, if Job teaches anything its that we should not assume too much about supernatural and divine matters beyond what God tells us. Also is there not a totalizing, everybody else has been totally wrong way in this. But that's more of a matter of phrasing, and besides I side with Heidegger at least and I see the wonders of Kantian logic. Need input.

Theory of Labor Value

I read Capital Volume 1 Chapter 1. I'm puzzling over it.

We start with commodities. Commodities have use value and exchange value. Use value comes from desire. Exchange value is the value that a commodity has in the market place. It must always be an equal exchange. What makes them equal and exchangeable? It is because they have value. What is value? Socially necessary labor time. If its on the market, then it is a product of human labor. What else do they have in common? They have use value, but that alone does not make an object something in need of exchange. Air has a use value. If a thing is useless, then the labor counts for nothing. Price lowering can be seen as a way to make the labor count for more, that is, to make it have a use value to people. Price is always affected by labor. Use affects it only in relation to labor.

I think....

Goodbye Dubya!

So I watched George W. Bush's farewell speech. I didn't go into it expecting a sorry. I mean that's simply unrealistic. But I was hoping for him to be more forward, to stop hiding behind "I made tough decisions". I wanted a deep refection and overview of his presidency from his perspective. But he avoided all honesty and instead tried vainly to repair his legacy. But in a way its fitting he left us as he treated us. Without respect for the people but for the ideal of the Nation. The neocon "spread democracy" dogma was on full display. The absolutes of Good and Evil were mentioned. I didn't want a apology, I wanted an Apology in the Socratic way. I wanted explanation, but this dishonest (in the sense that it is unconnected with reality, not that he is actually lying) was what I got. It has been the tone the entire presidency. Dishonest. And yet I have grown so used to thinking of him as president. If it weren't for this man, I would not be a socialist or even care about politics. He has affected us all because he matters, because he was produced by an ideology, because he was there at 9/11, because he has been president for Eight long years. Remember when Clinton was President? Neither do I. Goodbye Dubya. I'll miss you for some reason.

"I hope you leave here and walk out and say, 'What did he say?'"- George W. Bush

Oh and he coined the term "the internets"- awesome.

factory

EDIT:Removed by author

Have You Ever Danced with the Devil in the Pale Moonlight?

I have been writing something recently. I don't quite know what it is. It takes place in a city engulfed in fog. The main character is an ex-fisherman wandering around in a hazy unclear world, unsure of his own motives as well as others. I'm not sure where I should send him next: To the mine or to the factory? The saying "Have you ever danced with the Devil in the pale moonlight?" feels like a good way to describe this story.

On to other matters, I posted something on a political forum. These people are smarter than me, I'm not sure I'll be able to respond. I need time to regroup. I hate not having anything to contribute, yet whenever I open my mouth I sound stupid to all. I question my right to even bother thinking in these instances. Only good opinions are worth expressing. The problem is that everyone needs an opinion and yet nobody is an expert. 

Is it bad that I judge my worth as a person according to wether or not I can make a valid point about anything?

Religiously I am now a Hellenic Pagan. I might talk about that here sometime. Heidegger paper on formal indication is going rough.