To Freudians such statements seem paradoxical, to say the least; but the
simple fact is that never is it correct to assume, as they do, a
transcendental connection between a symbol C and a signification A, as if
the Unconscious Mind disposed of ready-made symbols of its own. Barring
words used in their proper sense, and similar borrowings from waking habit,
the so-called symbols in dreams are essentially impromptu fabrications, in
which the association is not a direct causal connection between A and C, but
a mediate association involving a third element, which psycho-analysts
usually leave out of account.
An element of this kind, overlooked in the formulation of a supposedly
simple connection between cause A and effect C, is labeled Hidden Z, by
Alfred Sedgwick. The Hidden Z in this case is what James calls the
topic-of-thought, Ebbinghaus the set-of-the-mind, and others
apperception-mass. In rhetoric it is familiar as context. It has an
important place in thought and speech. For example, when I utter the
phrase--Pas de lieu Rhone qne nous--the idea obtained is different according
to whether your language apperception-mass is set for French or for English.
It may have happened that while I was uttering the French nonsense phrase
you were hearing it as the English saying. Similarly, the traveler in Egypt
may correctly apperceive the meaning of architectural forms of temples as
phallic; whereas it would be manifestly out of context to do so in
connection with churchly edifices of the Gothic type, which do not represent
the generative powers of nature, as do the former.
Conversely, the Freudian disciple may apperceive, in error, a sexual meaning
in a dream, when the dreamer's mind contained no reference to this topic.
Hence, the interpreter must make sure that his own apperception-mass is
attuned to that of the dreamer in the given case. That is, one must be free
from apperceptive bias. One must reject all hastily formed causal laws to
the effect that C is the sign of A in every case. Otherwise absurd
conclusions must result, as in Freud's theory of the birth-phantasies. For
the same "symbol" may proceed from entirely different significations
according to the set-of-the-mind or apperception-mass. The following analogy
of Ebbinghaus puts the matter clearly: "When a train enters a large station
there are many paths over which it might pass; but its actual path depends
on the position which was given to the switches immediately before the
train's arrival."[19] That is why one needs to detect, experimentally, the
dream material that really represents the set-of-the-mind, and thence the
significant relations called MEANING.
In this connection, I published a year ago the dream of a child of six,
containing seemingly typical phallic symbols.[20] Not one of them could be
correlated with a sexual context; but every one was concretely shown to have
reached its position in the dream through the influence of an entirely
different set-of-the-mind. It is, therefore, not safe to assume stereotyped
meanings in dreams.