Part 15

If, then, in any case a causal relation between an antecedent wish and its dream fulfilment exists, it follows that there must be some link between that wish experienced in the past and the present dream fulfilment, some mode, mechanism, or process by which a past thought, without entering consciousness, can continue to its own fulfilment in a conscious work of the imagination, the dream. I say without entering consciousness because the original specific thought-wish does not appear in the dream consciousness, which is only the fulfilment. The phenomenon as a whole is also inexplicable unless there was some motivating factor or force which determined the form of the dream just as in conscious fabrication and argument “we” consciously motivate and arrange the form of the product. The only logical and intelligible inference is that the _original wish_, becoming reawakened (by the preceding suggestion) during sleep, _continued to function outside of the dream consciousness, as a motivating and directing subconscious process_.

But what was the content of this process, and to what extent can its elements be correlated with those of the dream? The experimental data of this dream do not afford an answer to this question. (Those of the observation I shall next give will permit a deeper insight into the character and content of their process.) It is a reasonable inference, however, inasmuch as the different elements of the dream—temple, stones, etc., the material out of which it is constructed—are found to be logical symbolizations of their associative memories, that these memories took part in the subconscious process and consequently may be correlated with their dream-symbols. In other words the content of the subconscious process was more than a wish, or wish neurogram, it included a large complex of memories of diverse experiences that can be recognized through their symbolizations in the dream. This complex, motivated by a particular wish, fabricated the dream, just as in the hallucinations I have cited an underlying process fabricated the hallucination as a symbolic expression of a subconscious judgment, self-reproach, etc. To do this a process that must be termed a _subconscious intelligence_ was required. The dream was an allegory, a product of constructive imagination in the logical form of an argument, and if constructed by an underlying process the latter must have had the same characteristics.[103]

This experimental dream confirms therefore the general principle formulated by Freud from the analysis of dreams in which the causal factor is an inferred wish. It is likewise on the assumption of my having correctly inferred this factor that I have insisted that a dream may be a fabricated expression of thoughts other than wishes or may be the solution of an unsolved problem. In this last case _the dream phenomena and mechanism seem to be analogous in every way to the subconscious solution of mathematical problems_ which I have already described. In such and other cases the subconscious process would seem to be a continuation and elaboration of the antecedent suggested problem.

In dreams, then, or, as we should strictly limit ourselves for the present to saying, _in certain dreams_, there are, as Freud first showed, two processes; one is the conscious dream, the other is a subconscious process which is the actuated residuum of a previous experience and determines the dream.[104] It would be going beyond the scope of our subject to enter into a full exposition of this interpretation at this time and I must refer you for a discussion of the dream problem to works devoted to the subject.

We have not, of course, touched the further problem of the _How_: how a subconscious intelligence induces a conscious dream which is not an emergence of the elements of that intelligence into self-consciousness, but a symbolization of them. This is a problem which still awaits solution. From certain data at hand it seems likely that so far as concerns the hallucinatory perceptual elements of a dream they can be accounted for as the _emergence of the secondary images_ pertaining to the subconscious “ideas.”

The following observation is an _example of subconscious versification and_ also of _constructive imagination_. It also, I think, gives an insight into the character and content of the underlying process which constructs a dream. I give the observation in the subject’s own words:

"I woke suddenly some time between three and four in the morning. I was perfectly wide awake and conscious of my surroundings but for a short time—perhaps two or three minutes—I could not move, and I saw this vision which I recognized as such.

"The end of my room seemed to have disappeared, and I looked out into boundless space. It looked misty but bright, as if the sun was shining behind a light fog. There were shifting wisps of fog blowing lightly about, and these wisps seemed to gather into the forms of a man and a woman. The figures were perfectly clear and lifelike—I recognized them both. The man was dressed in dark every-day clothes, the woman in rather flowing black; her face was partly hidden on his breast; one arm was laid around his neck; both his arms were around her, and he was looking down at her, smiling very tenderly. They seemed to be surrounded by a sort of rosy atmosphere; a large, very bright star was above their heads—not in the heavens, but just over them; tall rose bushes heavy with red roses in full bloom grew up about them, and the falling petals were heaped up around their feet. Then the man bent his head and kissed her.

"The vision was extraordinarily clear and I thought I would write it down at once. I turned on the light by my bedside, took pencil and paper lying there and wrote, as I supposed, _practically what I have written here_. I then got up, was up some minutes, went back to bed, and after a while to sleep. The clock struck four soon after getting back into bed. I do not think I experienced any emotion at the moment of seeing the vision, but after writing it down I did.

"The next morning I picked up the paper to read over what I had written and was amazed at the language and the rhythm. This is what I had written:

"‘Last night I waked from sleep quite suddenly, And though my brain was clear my limbs were tranced. Beyond the walls of my familiar room I gazed outward into luminous space. Before my staring eyes two forms took shape, Vague, shadowy, slowly gathering from the mists, Until I saw before me, you—my Love! And folded to your breast in close embrace Was she, that other, whom I may not name. A rosy light bathed you in waves of love; Above your heads there shone a glowing star; Red roses shed their leaves about your feet. And as I gazed with eyes that could not weep You bent your head and laid your lips on hers. And my rent soul’ ... [Apparently unfinished.]

“The thoughts were the same as my conscious thoughts had been—the vision was well described—but the language was entirely different from anything I had thought, and the writing expressed the emotion which I had not consciously experienced in seeing the vision, but which (I have since learned) I had felt during the dream, and which I did consciously feel _after_ writing. When I wrote I meant simply to state the facts of the vision.”[105]

The subject was unable to give any explanation of the vision or of the composition of the verse. She rarely remembers her dreams and had no memory of any dream the night of this vision. By hypnotic procedure, however, I was able to recover memories of a dream which occurred just before she woke up. It appeared that in the dream she was wandering in a great open space and saw this “picture in a thin mist. The mist seemed to blow apart” and disclosed the “picture” which was identical with the vision. At the climax of the dream picture the dreamer experienced an intense emotion well described in the verse by the unfinished phrase, “My rent soul...” The dreamer “shrieked, and fell on the ground on her face, and grew cold from head to foot and waked up.”

The vision after waking, then, was a repetition of a preceding _dream_ vision and we may safely assume that it was fabricated by the same underlying process which fabricated the dream, this process repeating itself after waking.

So far the phenomenon was one which is fairly common. Now when we come to examine the automatically written script we find it has a number of significant characteristics. (1) It describes a conscious episode, (2) As a literary effort for one who is not a poetical writer it is fairly well written and probably quite as good verse as the subject can consciously write; (3) It expresses the mental attitude, sentiments and emotions experienced in the dream but not at the time of the vision. _These had also been antecedent experiences_; (4) Both the central ideas of the verse and the vision symbolically represented certain antecedent presentiments of the future; (5) The script gives of the vision an interpretation which was not consciously in mind at the moment of writing.

Now, inasmuch as these sentiments and interpretations were not in the conscious mind at the moment of writing, the script _suggests_ that the process that wrote it was not simply a subconscious memory of the vision but the same process which fabricated the dream. Indeed, the phenomenon is open to the suspicion that this same process expresses the same ideas in verbal symbolism as a substitution for the hallucinatory symbolism. To determine this point, an effort was made to recover by technical methods memories of this process; that is to determine what wrote the verse and by what sort of a process. The following was brought out:

1. The script was written automatically. The subject thought she was writing certain words and expressing certain thoughts and did not perceive that she was writing different words. “Something seemed to prevent her seeing the words she wrote.” There were two trains of “thought.”

2. The “thoughts” of the verse were in her “subconscious mind.”[106] These “thoughts” (also described as “words”) were not logically arranged or as written in the verse, but “sort of tumbled together—mixed up a little.” “They were not like the thoughts one thinks in _composing_ a verse.” There did not seem to be any attempt at selection from the thoughts or words. No evidence could be elicited to show that the composing was done here.

3. Concurrently with these subconscious, mixed-up thoughts coconscious “images” of the words of the verse came just at the moment of writing them down. The images were bright, printed words. Sometimes one or two words would come at a time and sometimes a whole line.

In other words all happened _as if_ there was a deeper underlying process which did the composing and from this process certain thoughts without logical order emerged to form a subconscious stream and after the composing was done the words of the verse emerged as coconscious images as they were to be written. This underlying process, then, “automatically” did the writing and the composing. Hence it seemed to the subject even when remembering in hypnosis the subconscious thoughts and images that both were done unconsciously.

As to whether this underlying process was the same as that which fabricated the dream and the hallucination, the evidence, albeit circumstantial, would seem to render this almost certain. In the first place the verse was only a poetical arrangement of the subconscious thoughts disclosed; the vision was an obvious symbolic expression or visual representation of the same thoughts (that is, of course, of those concerned with the subject matter of the vision). The only difference would seem to be in the form of the expression—verbal and visual imagery respectively.[107] In the second place the vision was an exact repetition of the dream vision. It is not at all rare to find certain phenomena of dreams (visual, motor, sensory, etc.) repeating themselves after waking.[108] This can only be explained by the subconscious repetition of the dream process. Consequently we are compelled to infer the same subconscious process underlying the dream-vision. More than this, it was possible to trace these thoughts back to antecedent experiences of the dreamer, so that in the last analysis the dream-vision, waking-vision, and poetical expression of the vision could be related with almost certainty to the same antecedent experiences as the causal factors.

Certain conclusions then seem compulsory: underlying the dream, vision, and script was a subconscious process in which the fundamental factors were the same. As this process showed itself capable of poetical composition, constructive imagination, volition, memory, and affectivity it was a _subconscious intelligence_.

As to its intrinsic nature—coconscious or unconscious—according to the evidence at least the process that wrote the script contained conscious elements—the coconscious thoughts and images.

We may assume the same for the dream and the vision. As to the mechanism of the vision it is quite conceivable, not to say probable, that, corresponding to the coconscious images of the printed words during the writing, there were similar images of the vision scene (both in the dream and the waking state), but these _instead of remaining coconscious emerged into consciousness to be the vision_.[109] Whether the still deeper underlying process was conscious or unconscious could not be determined by any evidence accessible and must be a matter of hypothesis.

The chief importance that attaches to this observation, it seems to me, is the insight it gives into the character of the underlying process of a dream. If the conclusions I have drawn are sound, then the subconscious process which determines the conscious dream may be what is actually an _intelligence_ and it matters not whether a coconscious or unconscious one. This seems to me to be a conclusion fraught with the highest significance for the theory of dreams and hallucinatory phenomena in general. Of course we all know well enough that dissociated subconscious processes may be intelligent and influence the content of the personal consciousness, as witness coconscious personalities. If the underlying process of a dream may be something akin to such a personality, something capable of reasoning, imagination and volition, it renders intelligible the fundamental principle of the Freudian theory of a double process—the “latent” and “manifest” dream. One of the difficulties in the general acceptance of this theory has been, I think, the difficulty of conceiving a subconscious process—the “latent dream”—capable of the intelligent fabrication of a “manifest” dream phantasy which is a cryptic symbolization of the subject’s thoughts. Such a fabrication has all the earmarks of purpose, fore-thought and constructive imagination. But if this underlying process can be identified, even though it be in a single case, with such an intelligence as that which wrote the poetical script we have studied, it is plainly quite capable of fabricating the wildest dream phantasy.

I have suggested that the _subconscious intelligence_ may be _comparable to the phenomenon of a coconscious personality_. It is worth noting in this connection that in the case of Miss B. the coconscious personality, Sally, who claimed to be awake while Miss B. was dreaming, also claimed that Miss B. sometimes dreamed about what Sally was thinking of at the moment.[110] In other words, the thoughts of a large systematized coconscious intelligence determined the dream just as these thoughts sometimes emerged into Miss B.’s mind when awake. That a coconscious personality may persist awake while the principal personality is asleep I have been able to demonstrate in another case (B. C. A.). It was also noted in Dr. Barrows’ case of Anna Winsor. Moreover, Sally was shown to be a persistent, sane coconsciousness while Miss B. was delirious and also while she was apparently deeply etherized and unconscious.[111] After all it is difficult to distinguish _in principle_ the condition of sleep with a persisting coconsciousness from a state of deep hypnotic trance where the subject is apparently unconscious. In this condition, although the waking consciousness has disappeared, there can be shown to be a persisting “secondary” consciousness which can be communicated with by automatic writing and which later can exhibit memories of occurrences in the environment during the hypnotic trance. (B. C. A.)

What has been said does not touch, of course, the other mechanisms of the Freudian theory nor the unessential, greatly over-emphasized theory that the subconscious dream is always a sexual wish. On the contrary, the principle throws a strong, _a priori_ doubt upon the correctness of this generalization. It is plainly, however, a matter of fact which might be easily determined by observation were it not for the difficulty of correctly referring clinical phenomena to the correct antecedent experiences as their causal factors. In the last analysis it becomes always a matter of interpretation.

=Applied psychology.=—Much has been discovered in recent years regarding the part played by subconscious processes in the production of normal and abnormal phenomena. But we do not as yet know the possibilities and limitations of these processes. We have as yet but an imperfect knowledge of what they can do, what they can’t do, and what they do do, and of the mechanisms by which they are called into play and provoke phenomena. _Many pathological phenomena_ have been shown to be due to subconscious processes; and it is quite probable that these play an important part in determining the mental processes of normal life, but this is still largely theory. In applied psychology and psychopathology the “subconscious” has been made use of to explain many phenomena with which we have practically to deal. Assumed as a concept the phenomena are explained by it with a greater or less degree of probability. In those _hysterical conditions_ where the subconscious processes have been shown to be split-off conscious processes, we can often recover memories of the latter and demonstrate their relation to the hysterical phenomena by the various technical methods already mentioned. But where this cannot be done, as is ordinarily the case, some conserved antecedent experience must be inferred as the causal factor and assumed to be the functioning subconscious process which determines the phenomenon. To a large extent, then, in applied psychology and psychopathology the postulation in specific cases of a subconscious process is theoretical and open to more or less doubt. In other words, although a principle may be established, its application, as in all applied sciences, is apt to meet with difficulties.

Now the application of the principle of a subconscious process to the explanation of a given phenomenon is rendered peculiarly difficult because for practical purposes it is not so much the question of a subacting process that is at issue as it is of what particular antecedent experience is concerned in the process. The question is of the causal factor. For example, we may know from general experience in a large number of instances that a given hysterical phenomenon—a tic or a convulsive attack or an hallucination or a dream—must be in all probability determined by a subconscious process derived from some conserved experience, but what specific experience may be a matter of considerable uncertainty. _Hence the different theories and schools of interpretation_ that have arisen. The importance of clearly appreciating the nature of such problems and properly estimating the different theories at their true value is so great that I may be permitted a few words in further explanation.

Let us take dreams as a type. The conscious dream may be made up of fantastic imagery and apparently absurd thoughts without apparent logical meaning. Now from general experience we may believe that the dream is a cryptic symbolic expression of a logical subconscious process—perhaps a wish. The question is, what wish? The symbolism cannot be deciphered on its face. Now, by the analytic method associative memories pertaining to each element of the dream are recovered in abstraction. When a memory of antecedent thoughts of which the dream element is a logical symbolism or synonym and which give an intelligent meaning to the dream is recovered, we infer that these antecedent thoughts are contained in the determining subconscious process. Further, as it is found that certain objects or actions (e. g., snakes, flying, etc.) frequently occur in the dreams of different people as symbolisms of the same thoughts, it is inferred that whenever these objects or actions appear in the dream they are always symbolisms of the same underlying thoughts.

Obviously the mere fact of an antecedent experience arising as an associative memory is not of itself evidence of its being the causal factor. Hundreds of such memories might be obtained. To have evidential value the memory must give logical meaning to the dream or dream element under investigation. Now, as a matter of fact, more than one memory can often be obtained which answers these conditions. Consequently it becomes a matter of selection from memories, or interpretation, as to which is the correct solution of a given dream problem—and _mutatis mutandis_ of a pathological phenomenon. Naturally the selection is largely determined by personal views and _a priori_ concepts. It also follows that if one accepts the universality of a given symbolism and is committed to a given theory one can, by going far enough, find associations in vast numbers of dreams that will support that theory. The correct solution of a dream problem, that is, the correct determination of the specific underlying process, depends upon the correct determination of the causal factor and this must be inferred. The inferential nature of the latter factor therefore introduces a possible source of error. There must frequently be considerable latitude in the interpretation. This is not to gainsay that in a large number of instances the logical relation between antecedent experiences (recovered by associative memories) and the dream is so close and obtrusive that doubt as to the true subconscious process can scarcely be entertained.

An example of a condensed _analysis of a dream_ will illustrate the practical difficulty often presented in determining by clinical methods the correct causal factor and subconscious process of a dream. I select a simple one which consists of two scenes:[112]

"C. was somewhere and saw an old woman who appeared to be a _Jewess_. She was holding a _bottle_ and a _glass_, and seemed to be drinking whisky. Then this woman changed into her own _mother_, who had the bottle and glass, and appeared likewise to be drinking whisky.

“Then the door opened and her _father_ appeared. He had on her _husband’s dressing gown_, and he was holding _two sticks of wood_ in his hand.”

Before interpreting this dream I will state that the subject had been tormented (as was brought out by the associative memories) by the question whether poor people should be condemned if they yielded to temptation, particularly that of drinking. This problem she could not answer satisfactorily to herself. It is the inferred causal factor in the dream process. The dream gave an answer to this problem.