I almost feel as if we should be comparing Ratey and Hobson, rather than Hartmann and Hobson. The big difference between them was, I think, that Hobson focuses on how we dream and Hartmann focuses on why we dream.
Being far more interested in the why, I have to admit that I remember Hartmann a lot better. Hobson seemed almost like a review of Ratey in some ways, with more emphasis on dreaming.
I did find the section with the related imagery particularly interesting, especially after having read Freud. It's almost as if free association has been taken to the extreme, but without the emotional context. Images are just images and relate to other images, all neatly explained away by dopamione and seratonin.
Comments (1)
I agree. Hobson does seem to take away some of the romance we've come to associate with dreaming. I wonder, though, now that
Freud has approachedsome cultural saturation point, and Jung too in his own way--at least almost every one is somewhat aware of Freud (even if their notions are innacurate), and his and Jung's ideas have become so entrenched in our minds by way of their influence on TV, music, writing (even when we are not aware of it)--doesn't that mean then that they have infiltrated our dreams? that in some way we do dream according to their models? regardless of the misfires and chemicals that
Hobson wants to reduce this all to.
Posted by Scott Cheshire | October 13, 2006 5:40 AM
Posted on October 13, 2006 05:40