Vince did Jim ever talk of an interest in dreams?

[Joriki]

Hey Vince,
I saw that in your response to Celebration of the Lizard you mentioned some of it was Jim's dreams. I've read he did have an interest, and I'm wondering if this was anything you ever heard him discuss or had him discuss with you. I myself am really intererested in dreams and think that they are the psychedelics of the soul. With patience I imagine you could find out anything from your dreams that any kind of drug experience might provide. Aside from his drug taking and alcoholism, I imagine that Morrison had a genuine interest in such things and wonder if you have any info about it.

[vince]

Jim was more interested in the thoughts of religion and existance in a possible after life. He had a lot of thoughts of a philosophical nature.

I think he did not really want to discuss dreams, as such. His may not have been so pleasant.

Dreams are the result of the short tem memory sorting things out deciding whether to eliminate the unimportant (Delete) or put some of the day's events on hard drive.

What we know as dreams are the sorting process and the "Sense" we are trying to make of it.

Jim was not always happy with the events of the day. His dreams may well have been unpleasant and not a topic of discussion.

Remember that though he was a public figure, he was a private person.

[Joriki]

Vince,
I dig your writings a lot, but I've got to disagree with your assessment of JIm's dreams specifically and dreams generally. they are so much more than the organization of short term memory. Dreams are in a way the purest expression of how our consciousness views us. I imagine Jim's dreams commented on his creativity, his alcoholism, his relationships, his fame, his mental health(or lack of it) and ultimately his approaching death. Now whether or not he chose to remember them, or discuss them, is another matter. But as with all of us, there was an intelligence at Morrison's core that knew about what he was doing, and let him know that. It's disappointing that there is no record of what that intelligence was saying, I'm sure it would've been interesting.

[vince]

The dream process is known clinically. We don't have to get into that. The process of this preocessing is what dreams are made of.

If we cold know the how and why of Jim's, or any person's, intellectual process most of the questions on this Forum would be answered and a lot more I would like to ask as well.

It is ironic that when we had the chance to little was left to chance. 30 years later there is so much to know and so little information to find the reason.

[windchime]

Vince,
I dig your writings a lot, but I've got to disagree with your assessment of JIm's dreams specifically and dreams generally. they are so much more than the organization of short term memory. Dreams are in a way the purest expression of how our consciousness views us. I imagine Jim's dreams commented on his creativity, his alcoholism, his relationships, his fame, his mental health(or lack of it) and ultimately his approaching death. Now whether or not he chose to remember them, or discuss them, is another matter. But as with all of us, there was an intelligence at Morrison's core that knew about what he was doing, and let him know that. It's disappointing that there is no record of what that intelligence was saying, I'm sure it would've been interesting.

I have to agree with you on dreams. I cannot speak to what Jim dreamt about, but they are often a direct result of what is happening in our lives. Sometimes they are just random and seem to make no sence, but there is a meaning in them most of the time even if we cannot decifer them. Often times I find myself dreaming of my job, or something that is stressing me out or upsetting me. On the good side, often we all have those "fantasy" dreams where you might even reach a euphoric state in it if you get my drift *wink*. I dream every night and I often dream about things that are happening in my life (even if it seems abstract). Often times, I do think dreams can be really nice and an awakening of sorts.

[vince]

There has been a lot of research into dreams, what they are, how, when and why they occur and what they mean. Freud was the first to really make a codified stdy and publish his findings That caused quite a stir in it's day.

We can also look at the extension of his studies using more modern equipment to determin the dream states, depth of sleep, cycles of recurrance and the effects of sleep denial - there for dreaming.

This research is also published and readily available.

What anyone wants to believe or derive from their personal experiences, and possibly of others, should be tempered by the reality of scientific research. Then the personal interpretation can be far more effective. and revealing.

AS you get older, by the way, though you still dream, they are not nearly so memorable, thus remain obscure to the waking mind.

Interesting, What?

[Joriki]

Vince,
Sorry, but your expertise is in organs, and music. Mine is in dreams. You should read some Jung, perhaps some Hillman, further still you should explore the symbolic meaning in your own dreams, it would deepen your experience of them. It's easy to push them off with some small research that's been done. But over the past three thousand years or so, dreams have been incredibly helpful to millions of people all over the world. It's simply a matter of what your attitude is toward your unconscious. It probably views you the exact same way.

[vince]

Joriki:

Glad to meet a fellow expert.

I find that Jung is the student of the pioneer. I feel that the Master had a better concept of Dreams, though Jung advanced things in another direction.

I suggest that you would be astounded by what I do with my subconcious mind. I have had a lot of years to work on it.

There has been a great deal, rather than a "Small amount" of research into dreams and the effects that activity has on the waking as well as sleeping mind. Such research is both extensive and over a long time period

Anyay, let's put this aside. This is the Doors Forum and not Phych 101. Ihave promises to keep and miles to gobefore I sleep.

For reference I am an expert in, have engaged in or am quite familiar with the activities related to

Electrical Engineering
Structural Engineering
Master Organ Builder (this is really a european title)
Ships Captain (100,000 gt, open ocean, Atlantic)
Acoustical engineer
Accredited Teacher
Member of Coast Guard Auxiliary (25 years)
INSTRUCTOR
Safe boating classes, (Class room and practical on water)
Advanced Coastal Navigation
Rules of the Road
Vessel Examinar
Communication rating,
AuxOp certificate
Weather Specialist
Search And Recue qualified
Navigator (Coastal, Celestial and Electronic)
Naval Architect
Vessel designer
Production Engineer
Quality Control
Have designed the only full scale practical steel hulled computer
controlled sail driven cargo vessel
Expert and lecturer on Commercial Sail, 1890 to 1940
Cinematographer
Camera Operator
Sound Recordist
D.O.P.
Winner - Bosch & Lomb National Science Award

I speak English quite well and Mandarin sufficiently to converse.
My personal library consists of more than 7000volumes, mostly technology, all of which I have read two or more times, depending on subject. Of these about 10 deal with dreams and related subjects.

I have also done considerable drag racing, building racing engines

Aside from that, I relax. (when I can) and I write to a lot of nice people on the Forum.

[Joriki]

Hey Vince,
I find you to be a very impressive person, seriously. But what is discourse for, if not to disagree at times? Thanks for your time. It is very appreciated. By the way, it was Jung who was the master, not Freud.

[nephron]

Joriki,

Exactly what is your expertise in dreams? I'm a nephrologist trained at UCSD (San Diego) and oftentimes still don't feel like an expert in kidney disease/hypertension/dialysis/etc...... I can't imagine anyone with an expertise in something as nondescript or nonquantifiable as dreams.

Please know that I'm not being a prick or attacking you. Just stimulating conversation, so to speak.

However, I have to agree that dreams are 'more', so to speak, than offloading and organizing short term memory (cortical--hippocampal--mammilary body--cortical (vague description, I know) pathway). Otherwise, you would not be able to explain the horrific, unexplainable, fearful, exhilarating things sensed in the common dream, not sensed during consciousness.

[nephron]

"I have also done considerable drag racing, building racing engines"



I'm a fan for life.

Doors guy AND mechanic.

I'm building an Aluminum 555 Chevy using a World block that will make, according to computer programs I've purchased, about 740 hp on pump gas. It'll go into my 68 vette. Yeah, baby.

[JLizard]

I really enjoyed Craig Hamilton-Parker's discourse on dreams. I would highly recommend it to anyone trying to master the subject. The illustrations in this book are spell binding. It's easy to read but very in depth and creative.

[Joriki]

Joriki,

Exactly what is your expertise in dreams? I'm a nephrologist trained at UCSD (San Diego) and oftentimes still don't feel like an expert in kidney disease/hypertension/dialysis/etc...... I can't imagine anyone with an expertise in something as nondescript or nonquantifiable as dreams.

Please know that I'm not being a prick or attacking you. Just stimulating conversation, so to speak.

However, I have to agree that dreams are 'more', so to speak, than offloading and organizing short term memory (cortical--hippocampal--mammilary body--cortical (vague description, I know) pathway). Otherwise, you would not be able to explain the horrific, unexplainable, fearful, exhilarating things sensed in the common dream, not sensed during consciousness.

I have a Ph.d in Psychology and completed my training at the Jung Institute in Zurich. Personally, it is my belief, as it was Jung's that dreams are an eternal part of you, speaking to your ego about the state of things. A dream is as natural as a tree, or an animal, and has meaning as part of nature and in your relationship to it.

[nephron]

lol, looks like you're about as qualified as they get

[vince]

Well, you have asked me to provide my expertise in dreams.

Let's see, I know I have been doneing it for at leat 71 years. That is some experience.

Actually Dreams are fascinating and certainly do open the eyes to the mysteries of the mind. I don't prestned to be an expert in Dreams - Just say active participant and avid fan.

Am I mistaken that Jung was a student and protoge of Freud?

But in any case, Jim did not aften speak in absolute terms about anything. He was one to ask and then ask about reastions or answers, He did not often answer in real time.

I do wonder, now that the subject has been broached, what he did dream about. He surely had a very active imagination and that must have been either cause or result of some strange goings on.

Here is a good one for you. My Cousin too one of those Buick aluminum engines and popped into his MG - a real restoers on that on the outside, with the exception of dual large diameter exhausts, looked absolutely original. Ins ide there was this engine with a fuel injected, bored and stroked engine supercharged with a lathan axial flow unit, corvet t-10 synchro trani, positrack rear end and special drive shaft.

I had a custom built 1960 Pontiac Bonneville, black with red interior. I had a range of engines for it all the way up to a 494 engine with a 6-71 on it with Fuel injection. I had the Tri-Power carb array, Dual Quad Rams by Mickey Thompson, and straight port fuel injection.

The Clutch was 3400 pound pressure plate. I didn't like clutch slippage. I vould lay rubber in 4th gear from a dead stop. I don't think I can do it now but i could call out the specs of every bolt, nut, washer and screw in that engine.

It was the only car built by Pontiac, factory original with bucket seats in a herd top for model year 1960. It did raise eyebrows.

Those were the days, my Love......

Then came the Doors and I left it all behind -

Keep up the commentary guys - It is fun.

[Joriki]

Hey Vince,
Jung was in fact Freud's greatest protege'. In fact, Freud was grooming him to be the Aryan representative of "Jewish Analysis." They had a huge break though, a break that left Jung almost psychotic. Basically they broke while they talked about a dream Jung had. Freud, looked at it in a basic reductionistic fashion(unexpressed desires of the id, and Jung saw it as a commentary on the developing relationship with is own unconscious. Basically the difference between the two was that Freud saw everything as frustrations of the id, and Jung saw a dynamic process evolving in a person's consciousness where things of which they were unaware were trying to make themselves known. He thought this was a lifelong process of development. Freud was a visionary in his own way, taking all that medicine had presented about dreams and synthesizing it into his own theory. Jung took that theory and ran with it, taking it past western theory and linking it up with the knowledge immemorial. Knowledge from aboriginal cultures(i.e. shamanism) and with mystery schools like Alchemy and Astrology. Jung was one of the twentieth century's great visionaries. Like Einstein in a way(who was a friend). Toward the end he was interested in the sub atomic ground of all reality. He was a real tripper. And without him, there would be no Joseph Campbell and all that he contributed. As for anyone else out there who is interested in their own dreams, If you develop an interest in them, they will spring forth in gratitude. I can't tell you how many times I've worked with people who said they didn't dream, and when Itold them simply to put a pen and paper next to their bed before they went to sleep, came running into my office the next week almost screaming, "What have you done to me?" as they reported the flood of dreams they could still remember.
As for JIm's dreams, Vince, I am sure they would have been fascinating, and toward the end reflected his depression and alcoholism. Jung(who was a great influence on Bill W.(that's another story) was a believer that alcoholics were dying of thirst for a real spiritual life. Thus, alcohol has always been known as "spirits." Jim sounds like someone who though he had a great many philosophies of the spirit, wasn't actually able to experience it, firsthand. His philosophizing and alcoholism were generated by the same "dis-ease." it would've been a problem long before he found alcohol.
His dreams would've spoken to that, as well as his talents, and his fate. I wonder if they're in any of his journals? It is an intent of mine to one day create an anthology of the dreams of those who are well known. It would be fascinating, I think.

[nephron]

Joriki

Ever see the triptych(s) that Morrison commissioned Breitenbach to do?
What point do you think I'm trying to make?

Here: http://www.tebreitenbach.com/morrison.htm

[windchime]

Joriki

Ever see the triptych(s) that Morrison commissioned Breitenbach to do?
What point do you think I'm trying to make?

Here: http://www.tebreitenbach.com/morrison.htm

That is lovely, thanks.

[vince]

Boy, are you right there. Jim as definitely not at ease with himself when he was young - in lower level school Many stories tell of his passion to be recognized and constant enactment of bizzar things to attract attention to himself. Of course all this did was to label him as Strange,
(Strange Days).

I am no expert of dreams - don't pretend to be except as I see what concerns me and my existance. I like the part about writing things down... Interesting.

It would indeed by quite a feat if you could obtain the data for your anthology. Revealing it would be.

I knew about the relationship between Jung and Freud but did not know of the evolution of each. Very interesting and thank your for the scholarly lecture. Infomation is always welcome. I appreciate your patience.


I did not mean to reply as a quote but I had no other way to reply to you directly. Please excuse me.

Hey Vince,
Jung was in fact Freud's greatest protege'. In fact, Freud was grooming him to be the Aryan representative of "Jewish Analysis." They had a huge break though, a break that left Jung almost psychotic. Basically they broke while they talked about a dream Jung had. Freud, looked at it in a basic reductionistic fashion(unexpressed desires of the id, and Jung saw it as a commentary on the developing relationship with is own unconscious. Basically the difference between the two was that Freud saw everything as frustrations of the id, and Jung saw a dynamic process evolving in a person's consciousness where things of which they were unaware were trying to make themselves known. He thought this was a lifelong process of development. Freud was a visionary in his own way, taking all that medicine had presented about dreams and synthesizing it into his own theory. Jung took that theory and ran with it, taking it past western theory and linking it up with the knowledge immemorial. Knowledge from aboriginal cultures(i.e. shamanism) and with mystery schools like Alchemy and Astrology. Jung was one of the twentieth century's great visionaries. Like Einstein in a way(who was a friend). Toward the end he was interested in the sub atomic ground of all reality. He was a real tripper. And without him, there would be no Joseph Campbell and all that he contributed. As for anyone else out there who is interested in their own dreams, If you develop an interest in them, they will spring forth in gratitude. I can't tell you how many times I've worked with people who said they didn't dream, and when Itold them simply to put a pen and paper next to their bed before they went to sleep, came running into my office the next week almost screaming, "What have you done to me?" as they reported the flood of dreams they could still remember.
As for JIm's dreams, Vince, I am sure they would have been fascinating, and toward the end reflected his depression and alcoholism. Jung(who was a great influence on Bill W.(that's another story) was a believer that alcoholics were dying of thirst for a real spiritual life. Thus, alcohol has always been known as "spirits." Jim sounds like someone who though he had a great many philosophies of the spirit, wasn't actually able to experience it, firsthand.

His philosophizing and alcoholism were generated by the same "dis-ease." it would've been a problem long before he found alcohol.
His dreams would've spoken to that, as well as his talents, and his fate. I wonder if they're in any of his journals? It is an intent of mine to one day create an anthology of the dreams of those who are well known. It would be fascinating, I think.

[nephron]

Nothing complex from my standpoint, Joriki. I would just wonder if you could do justice to these things and educate us all. I have no idea.

[vince]

Nephron - Evidently Joriki is practicing in the study of dreams. He has osme very interesting thoughts on what the dreams of some of the "Unusual" people in the entertainment industry might reveal about their inner turmoil and aspirationa.

Especially in the case of Morrison - who is close to our interests, it might be a revelation.

Maybe he can enlighten us about the possible cause of Jim's behavior.

I have put my opinions down, based on stories I have heard about Jim and his background - adding his stage and drinking behavior for seasoning. How interesting it would be to see what other thoughts present themselves.

Jim was a mystery, an enigma. How nice it would be to peek inside.

Perhaps more insight would lessen the pain of his death. No matter that on occasions he was a really bad boy, utterly self willed and destructive, no one wanted him to die - especially as he did.

[Joriki]

Vince,
I actually have a very strong theory about JIm's psychological make up as well as the reasons that Ray has perpetrated his dionysian myth and I'll list lay themout when I have some time.

[vince]

Joriki:

Most interesting indeed. When you are ready. I have no doubt that this will be a great revelation.

I will assume that the like between Jim and Ray is even more startling. I have had my ideas for a long time but out of mutual respect for all concerned have kept to myself.

Likely best to PM with your postulations. This is one of those personal areas that I like to keep off the mainstream. With Jim, there are a lot of them - trust me.

I was deeply hurt by Jim's death. Sad, yes, but hurt and disappointed that he should go so far as to allow that situation to obtain. Perhaps your thoughts will provide some insights into this tormented personality.

Vince



Vince

[nephron]

Vince,

Based solely on odd remarks Ray has made about Jim over the last 10 or 15 years (again, this could all simply be myth-building on his part), I see where you're going. I'd bet somebody is going to have something to say about a possible severely traumatic childhood event as well (I think only Fink has made reference to such). And for whatever my individual opinion is worth, I wholeheartedly agree to keep such discussion off any board.

Joriki,

How are you using your training? Teaching? Academia? Do you actually have a practice? I recall in Medical School that the Jungian and Freudian concepts were treated less seriously than these more so-called 'modern' ways of approaching psychotherapy (cognitive, behavioral, etc.). Now, even psychotherapy is falling by the wayside in lieu of drugs. Keep in mind that most of these SSRI's (eg Prozac, Zoloft) etc., when used singularly, have (simple analogy only) a 30% response rate over a predefined period of time, while even the placebo effect is typically 20%. Billions every year are spent achieving that 10%. I wouldn't say drugs are meaningless, as they seem to be helpful as part of a multifaceted approach. But I would wonder where the Jungian/Freudian folks would put them (drugs)? Recall that Freud, for instance, self medicated with Cocaine, amongst others...initially claiming that it was the 'cure all', so to speak, although you'd have more to say about that than myself.

Good stuff. 8)

[Joriki]

vince,
I'll do that. Will be interested in your assessment.
Nephron,
I see clients and a write, and teach here and there. I realize in medical circles both Freudian and Jungian techniques are taken less seriously, but it's been my experience that therapy as a whole is taken less seriously as the body and brain are looked at mechanically. Personally, I think drugs like zoloft or prozac can be a life preserver if people are drowning. But, I am quite sure that they are no long term solution. As a Jungian, it is my belief that what is healing to people is the awareness of meaning in their lives and more importantly a relationship with their soul, which speaks to them in their dreams, fantasies, problems and in the circumstances of their lives. Their ego, which is mostly formed in response to their environment should be used to navigate the world, both internal and external. If the ego loses touch with their internal world or psyche , which is part of nature and eternal, they experience a loss of meaning, depression, and a host of other psychological problems. So a jungian analysts work is to create a relationship between a client and their internal world from which all their experience springs. As far as the medical model goes, it is my feeling that eventually medicine will discover chemical correspondences for every state. But the truth is those chemical correspondences are a result of psychological states not the cause of them. Just as a person who experiences great amounts of stress will often have high blood pressure. There have been a great many remarkable studies on the effects for instance of meditation on Brain Chemistry. Change the way ones consciousness is functioning and it actually affects the way that the brain functions. But for the most part, people want a quick fix and that is where drugs come in. Just as all the highs availible in the world whether they be psychedelic, speedy, or depressant exist within the brain, so does the feelings of well being denied the depressed person. If you are interested, I can provide you with a model of schizophrenia that resolves itself without drugs. I hope this wasn't too didactic.
cheers,

[nephron]

I'd be interested in any data on the treatment of schizophrenia with Jungian-esque therapy. I think you can explain minor depression/dysthymia as being a so-called serotonin-involved chemical imbalance caused by repetetive negative thought, or as you say, loss of association with your internal self. However, bipolar disease and severe unipolar depression is damned hard to explain that way...of course, I'd like to hear your opinion.

[Joriki]

Ok, check this out, Nephron. Jung's theory on schizophrenia was basically that the ego had wandered so far from the reality of the soul that the unconscious reached up and grabbed it and took over to reorient it toward it's natural state. A reorientationt that was experienced as a disorientation by the ego, which really had no eternal natural reality. In the 1970's a jungian analyst in San Francisco named John Weir Perry who was a disciple of Jung's tested out his theory magnificently.
He created a program called Diabussus House. It was for first break psychotics between the age of 17-21 when schizophrenia traditionally first appears. Using Jung and his own's theory, he created a program where each patient had at least three people around at all time to manage their experience. There was no restraint, no drugs, and the patient was encouraged to express their experience through talking about it, writing about it, painting it, whatever modality was most interesting. He found that each episode lasted between 3-6 weeks and if allowed to unfold organically would resolve itself with a new orientation. Now get this, he had a non recividism rate of over 90 percent!!!! Which is incredible when you realize that for most people schizophrenia is a life sentence. He wrote a book about the experience. called the Far side of Madness and many others. Now of course, this model hasn't been too followed because it would be too expensive in world of medecine and insurance we now live in. But the data is undeniable. Jung and Perry saw schizophrenia as an organic process of a system trying to return itself to homeostatic health. I agree wholeheartedly, but it's hard to explain it to people in the modern cartestian mechanistic world. IT's true though, you can check out perry on the internet, or read one of his books. I could write about it for days, if you're intersted in knowing more.

[nephron]

Joriki,

Is there data? As in peer-reviewed, published, etc. It'd be nice to have had a control group and a group on drugs (Risperidal, etc.). It's hard to make sense of small group anectdotal studies. Of course, I'm a statistics freak and don't believe anything until it's been rigorously abused by p-values and what not.

I'd like to read the study myself. I'll attempt to find it on the net. The published reference would be great.

What would Jung say about mania? I'm bipolar, and consider myself proudly in good company (Van Gogh, Blake, Rimbaud, Michelangelo, Beethoven, Lord Byron (yeah, baby...), RW Emerson, Baudelaire, of course...Dickens, Twain, etc.). ...some would say Jim Morrison, although I'm not sure of that. I see Jim as a sane guy that WANTED to be insane, and emulated these people to the nth degree, but couldn't quite get there. Whether you could blame this phenomenon on his excessive use of EtOH is debatable. Particularly since most bipolars self-medicate in order to achieve certain states of normality or highness, or whatever, ...themselves.

What would Jung say about the concept that psychosis/insanity is rarely distinguished from brilliance? What would Jung say is the etiology of bipolar disease? What of his idea of treatment? Was bipolar disease recognized as a condition back then? Probably not. I've never done the research to find out.

[Joriki]

Nephron,
Jung had very strong ideas about why madness and genius were so closely aligned. Basically Jung would've thought that there was almost no genius in the ego. The ego relates to outer world and can also relate to the inner world. But the ego itself is an adaptive mechanism. Simply it is a story that you tell yourself about who you are, what you like, what you remember, what you're good at, what you're not. Genius is in the unconscious and is part of the self. Genius is something eternal and natural. Those who have no choice of experiencing the unconscious are often overwhelmed by it. They cannont organize the experience they are having very well. They are flooded by it. Jung would say, a mystic floats and a schizophrenic sinks. People who have a great access to the unconscious often have poorly developed egos. Egos that haven't formed well in their environment, and thus are unable to be in control of the relationship that they have with their unconscious. The unconscious has them, it doesn't relate to it, it's taken over by it. Van Gogh, MOzart, Hendrix, Einstein, all these men had deep relationships with their unconscous but were less successful managing their lives. Morrison was the same. It makes for interesting art, but chaotic lives. As for being bi polar, that's anothe subject, one that Jung didn't weigh in on, but speaks to to this theories, and though not simple is addressable.

[nephron]

People who have a great access to the unconscious often have poorly developed egos

wow--that's perfect. Unbelievable.