Bert O. States

Definitions of Dream: A Paradigm for Comparing Field Descriptive Specific Studies of Dream

A single definition for dreaming is most likely impossible given the wide spectrum of fields engaged in the study of dreaming, and the diversity in currently applied definitions. Many studies do not specify a definition, yet results are likely to be comparable only when comparable definitions of the topic are used. The alternative is to develop a classification system organizing the multiplicity of definitions for dream. A dream should not be exclusively defined as a non-conscious electrophysiologic state. Dreaming is, at least in part, a mental experience that can be described during waking consciousness. Definitions for dreaming should be utilized in research and discussion which address the various axes which define dreaming: Wake/sleep, Recall, and Content.

Dream Bizarreness and Inner Thought

The paper offers a critique of bizarreness studies that compare dreams to real world probability ratios and directed thought processes as a basis for determining the degree of bizarreness in dreams. It examines two cases from the literature and suggests that dreams are better compared to non-directed, or imaginative waking thought processes, specifically Inner Thought and Speech (or “speech for oneself,” in Lev Vygotskys definition), in which associative mechanisms operate freely hand in hand with (primarily) visual imagery before logical thought mechanisms come into play. The article suggests that dreams create a world order, or umwelt, with its own distinct cognitive domain in which waking considerations of efficiency, logic, and common sense are only thematically relevant. Dreams follow their own “logic” and can only be approached as thought-in-progress, or a search for coherence leading up many “blind alleys.” Finally, the relevance to dreams of the Inner Thought principle of “predication,” or “abbreviation” is examined.

The Anatomy of Dramatic Character

Very little in the study of the drama is as neglected as the phenomenon of character. We feel the force of its presence yet seem able to talk about it only in the vaguest of terms. Primarily, character is so elusive because it is at once cause and effect, both the fuel that drives the plot and a kind of exhaust or emanation given off by the plot. How can we possibly disentangle character and plot in an exchange such as this -