Introduction to Psychoanalysis

Chapter 27 Some Questions and Critical Observations (1)
Gentlemen, before we conclude our discussion of dreams, it is necessary to address the most general points of doubt raised by this new theory.After you have listened carefully to several of my speeches, you will probably have the following questions and criticisms.

First, you may think that even if we stick to consistent techniques in dream analysis, we are unable to decide what to do when faced with two ambiguous ambiguities.It is therefore quite incorrect to translate dreams into latent thoughts.First, you must think that it is impossible to know whether an element in a dream is taken in its apparent or symbolic sense, since what is used as a symbol remains the same.To conclude that there is no objective evidence for this question means that dream analysis is at liberty to interpret a particular feature of dreams.Secondly, two opposite things can be united in the dream-work, so that in each case it is difficult to decide whether to take a positive or a negative sense for a certain element of a dream, so It is to give the dream interpreter the opportunity to choose at will.Thirdly, inversions frequently occur in dreams, at which point dream analysis can also be assumed to exist or not.Fourth, you may have also heard that no one can tell whether a given explanation is the only one possible, and that no one can avoid ignoring the possibility of other acceptable explanations.In these cases, you would think that dream-analysis, since it is free to choose, has no objectivity in its results.You may even think that our analysis of dreams is unsatisfactory because our concepts and premises are faulty, rather than the dream itself.

Of course, what you said is undeniable, but I think it is not enough to prove the following two conclusions: one is that we can choose whatever we want in dream analysis; .If you blame the dream-interpreter's skill, experience, and understanding, not for arbitrariness, then I agree with you.Such personal factors are inevitable, especially when analyzing extremely difficult problems.This is true even for other kinds of scientific research; it is helpless for one person to apply the same technology better or worse than others.For example, the interpretation of symbols seems arbitrary, but if you consider the relationship between the latent thoughts of the dream, the relationship between the dreamer and the dream, and even the relationship between the dreamer and the entire mood during the dream, we are only allowed to have one interpretation, and all others are invalid. It will be able to correct the previous wrong impression.You will think that the incompleteness of the explanation is due to the fallacy of the assumption, but if you understand that ambiguity is the nature of dreams, then your conclusions will lose their force.

Remember, I have said that the dream-work is the transformation of latent dream thoughts into primitive representations similar to hieroglyphics.And such primitive expressions are inevitably ambiguous and uncertain; however, we cannot doubt their practical application value because of this.For another example, the opposite words merged into one during the dream-work, isn't it similar to the meaning of the "primitive language" in the ancient texts?This is what you already know.This is provided to us by the linguist Abel. In his works, he discussed that although ancient people used puns to communicate with each other, they did not cause misunderstandings.Whether what is expressed in the speaker's mind is negative or positive can be guessed from the tone of voice and posture when speaking and the relationship between the front and the back.And writing can’t distinguish the posture, so small pictures are used to replace it. For example, in the pictograph, the word ken, if the knee is bent in the attached picture, it means "weak", and if it is upright, its meaning is "strong".Therefore, although the pronunciation and characters of the characters are puns, they are not misleading.

In the most ancient languages, there are often various uncertain meanings, which is no longer the case in modern writing.For example, Jewish characters, which mostly retain consonants and omit vowels, must be supplemented by readers based on their knowledge and context.The principles of hieroglyphs are similar; so the pronunciation of Egyptian characters is unpredictable.In the sacred writings of Egypt, there are still many kinds of uncertainties: for example, with regard to pictures, whether to read from right to left or from left to right is arbitrarily decided by the author, and it must refer to the faces, Only the bird or other directions can be read.The author can also arrange the pictures in a straight line at will. If he wants to write an inscription on a smaller object, the author can change the order of the symbols according to his own preferences and the status of the object.The lack of space between words is one of the most suspect features of Egyptian writing.The pictures on each page are spaced at the same distance, making it difficult for us to judge whether a symbol is the end of the previous character or the beginning of the latter character.Persian cuneiform writing is the opposite, with a slash as a spacer between two words.

The Chinese language and characters are the oldest, and they are still used by 400 million people today. But don’t think that I understand Chinese. I just know some knowledge of Chinese, because I hope to find all kinds of things similar to dreams in Chinese. Uncertainty; I am not disappointed, there are indeed all kinds of uncertainties in Chinese, and the situation is horrifying.You know that Chinese has various sounds used to represent syllables, monophonic or polyphonic.A certain dialect has more than [-] syllables and about [-] characters. It can be seen that each sound has about a dozen different meanings on average, some more, some less.So in order to avoid misunderstanding, various methods have been devised, because the context is not enough to judge what the speaker is trying to convey.Among these methods, one is to combine two characters into one, and the other is to use the change of "four tones".For the convenience of comparative research, we want to talk about a very interesting fact, that is, Chinese has no grammar in fact: it is difficult to determine whether these monosyllables are nouns, verbs or adjectives, and the endings of words do not change to indicate gender. , number, grid, time or formula, etc.Or we can say that this language has only "raw materials", just as the language with which we express our thoughts, reduced to raw materials under the influence of the dream-work, does not express these mutual relations.Whenever there is uncertainty in Chinese, the listener will judge according to his own meaning according to the context.For example, there is a Chinese saying "rare is more strange", its meaning is easy to understand.It can be translated as: "The less knowledge a person has, the more strange he is." It can also be translated as: "A person with less knowledge will inevitably be surprised." These two translations are slightly different in grammatical structure. Of course we It is also not necessary to choose between the two.However, despite all kinds of uncertainties in Chinese, it is still a very convenient tool to convey ideas. From this, we can also know that uncertainty is not necessarily the cause of misunderstanding.

Of course, we have to admit that the status of dreams cannot be compared with these ancient languages ​​and words. The latter are tools for conveying thoughts.The dream, on the other hand, whose purpose is concealment, whose main task is not to be understood, is therefore absolutely not a means of expressing thoughts.We need not be surprised or dismayed if there are various difficulties in determining the content of the dream.From the results of comparative studies we can be sure that this uncertainty, with which the validity of the analysis of dreams is so often denied, should be regarded as a common feature of the various primitive languages ​​and writings.

The extent to which our understanding of dreams can be achieved in reality can only be determined by practice and experience.I personally think that this degree is very high; it is enough to confirm my opinion if a comparative study is made of the conclusions obtained by those who are skilled in analysis.Ordinary people encounter scientific problems, and their attitudes are always inclined to doubt and deny, so as to show their superiority, and scientists are no exception; I think it is wrong for them to do so.You may not know that this phenomenon also occurred in the first translations of Babylonian and Assyrian inscriptions into modern languages.The general opinion is that this whole study is nothing more than a hoax, and that the translators of cuneiform have judged and done their work on the basis of their fancy.However, in 1857, the "Royal Asiatic Society" made a test to distinguish right from wrong.The society asked four of the most famous scholars engaged in this research: Rollinson, Hinks, Hawke Talbot and Oubert, to translate the newly discovered inscriptions and send them to the society in sealed form.After comparing and checking the translations of the four people, the Institute issued a verdict, arguing that their translations are roughly the same, so the existing achievements are authentic and future progress is foreseeable.Since then, the ignorant scholars have gradually stopped ridiculing, and the translation of cuneiform has become more certain since then.

Secondly, some people think that many of our conclusions about dream analysis are far-fetched, even ridiculous, so they criticize psychoanalysis, and perhaps you can't help but do the same.There are many such criticisms and questions, and I will take the latest one I heard as an example for the time being.In Switzerland, known as the country of freedom, the principal of a certain school was recently forced to resign because of his interest in psychoanalysis.He also protested.A newspaper in Bern published the resolution of the Education Bureau on this matter, including the judgment on psychoanalysis, as follows: "Professor Fest of the University of Zurich, the cases cited in his book are full of strong words, shocking people. It is indeed unexpected that such a theory and such evidence have convinced a president of a teacher-training college." It is said that these conclusions are the conclusions of their rational judgments.I would rather think that this so-called "calmness" is actually self-deception. Now that we have more precise research on these "calmness" conclusions, I want to add some knowledge and thoughts, so as not to hurt "calmness".

On the deep and important questions of deep psychology, we are indeed refreshed by a man who immediately expresses the correct opinion on the basis of his first impression, and our analysis seems to him to be preposterous and unsubstantiated. of.So our analysis is also wrong, and the whole study is of course meaningless.Haven't these critics, however, never considered that there are considerable reasons why our analysis makes this impression, and if they had done so they would perhaps have delved deeper for some better reasons.

(End of this chapter)