Hi Jeremy and all,

 I'm not a voting member of the EDU committee, but I would generally accept
all the principles offered with an addition to #3 which talks about normal
(Air - mediated ?) communications vs computer mediated communications. This
needs an proviso. see below. 

I also still have reservations about the projection principle, which to me
is a "should have" but as a subtopic under the history of dreamwork. 

RE: #3
as stated:

(3) Any program training people to work with dreams should include a 
significant experience of adequately supervised, "hands-on", face-to-face 
dream work, leading and facilitating work with dreams, both with groups and 
individuals. (As electronic communications media become increasing important 
in our post-modern lives, this "hands-on" component may also be extended to 
include telephone and computer connected work with dreams, but traditional, 
face-to-face work must also be a significant element of the program. If the 
program does include training in working with dreams using electronic media, 
this work must also be supervised by instructors who themselves have adequate 
experience working with dreams using these media.) There should be written 
evaluations of the performance of trainees in these supervised situations. 
The criteria upon which these evaluations are based must be clearly stated, 
and applied equally.

  I realize I am being a bit of a futurist here, but I would add a proviso
to this something like"..until such time that our communication interfaces
offer no significant difference between face-to-face and computer mediated
presence. " 

  and drop the the word "traditional" in  "traditional, face-to-face work"
.  Or operationally define it.    What is *traditional* face-to-face
dreamwork anyway?   



"Any program training people to work with dreams should have a 
fundamental component addressing the universal human process of unconscious 
"projection". This tranining component should include material relating to 
projection both as a major element in the creation of the manifest content of 
the dream itself, as well as a primary factor in the subsequent exploration 
and work with any dream or dream series."

  Projection is an interesting and powerful way to look at dreams, and
depth psychology would collapse without it (theoretically) , but I have a
funny feeling about it,  and sorry I'm not being more articulate than
"funny feeling".  To me its like saying that any school of literature needs
to not just mention shakespeare, but must teach Hamlet.   It seems out of
place to me to get into the benefits of Hamlet at this top level of basic
dreamwork criteria.  Oranges need to be talked about in the history of
fruit class,  but projection is like Florida Oranges, or orange seeds. 
   I would feel any school that doesn't deal with this issue would be
missing a major component in the history of dreamwork.  But I think this
would hold true for association techniques and dream recall, and
exploration of peer/partnership group work.  These are, to me, subtopics
rather than principles. 

  To me, projection is a technical/clinical term that imports the notion of
the unconscious, the field of psychotherapy and a whole host of 20th
century notions, as well as a host of Eastern spiritual notions, all of
which may be significant and important in the history of dreamwork, but not
necessarily a *primary component* or basic principle of a school that
teaches dreamwork.  

 Respectfully submitted,


"I wake up in the morning with a dream in my eyes."
                                  allen ginsberg

Richard Wilkerson * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.dreamgate.com
DreamGate, 4644 Geary Blvd PMB 171, San Francisco, CA 94118
(415) 221-3239 * Electric Dreams * DreamGate Publishing *

Reply via email to