you have prophetic dreams.

thanks and Take Care

sean

I am now going through a book which has 2 papers by Hobson. One of them discusses the biochemistry of the effects of prescription and recreational drugs on dreams and REM sleep, and contains aware warnings to potential users. I am not sure how much guidance is available to the public at large, in this area, especially with emphasis on what consumers, as opposed to specialists, should know.

Unlike with dream interpretation, sleeping is something everybody goes through. Larger segments of the population than are involved in the dream study movement must be in the market for sleep aids. This neuroscience related pharmacological industry must have some influence on the high volume of medical research that has now become a big, and it seems to me, different, branch of the “new” oneirology.

I am writing a paper on this topic and have done a good bit of research on Freud, Jung and Hobson’s opinioin. I am most intrigued by Hobson’s approach and I understand that there is a chemical change happening when we dream, but what I’m not getting from Hobson’s ideas is why?? Why do the seratonin levels decrease and acetylcholine levels increase? What purpose does that serve? Is it merely an excerise tool for our brain? Or is there more too it that I am not understanding?

Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks,

Christina

The future answers to all our questions about dreaming will be much clearer thanks to this groundbreaking work by Dresler and colleagues. Unfortunately (for me at least), I came across this just as I was busy writing up a “proposed” neuropsychological model of lucid dreaming. Looks like the Germans beat me to it…ah well.

I have read Wilber with great interest – his integral theory can work with Hobson’s model, altho Hobson would disagree. From Hobson’s perspective, integral theory is not valid because it is not testable: it moves outside the bounds of scientific materialism. But from Wilber’s, the AIM maps only a quarter of the cosmos (the material correlates to consciousness).

Eric, thanks for your kind words and I’m glad to hear that you are rethinking the value of Hobson’s perspective. Whether or not AIM exposes the inherent meaningfulness of dreaming, there’s no debating that this perspective will continue to influence future generations of dream researchers and scientists.

This is a terrific article. Like you (as I gather), I never had much use for Hobson’s apparent dismissal of meaning-centered theories. He has even admitted that his research arose out of a principled (and partly understandable) hatred of rudely overinterpretive psychoanalysts. Obviously, though, wanting something to be true (like that dreams’ meaning isn’t part of their function) doesn’t make it so. Yet I think you do a great, and very fair, job of summarizing Hobson’s evolving views. I now feel that I, too, should go back and read some of his primary works, rather than just blanketly dismiss him.

Eric

I loved your piece which comments in an enlightened way on Hobson’s theory, and in particular his AIM methodology. My only question would be this: ‘Do all archetypes, cross -culturally’ have an integral scientific/materialistic explanation?’ Or ‘Are we really talking about Science’s attempt to analyze different and nested holarchies of Being?’ (Cf K Wilber)

I would be interested in your thoughts on the matter.

Warm regards, and Happy New Year from snowbound UK!

Hugh