Perspectives on dreams and implications for Profesional Communication (2)

The post is in letter correspondance format

For Brad:

"What one person means by a dream may be something else to someone else''

I am trying to verify the above statement with a few thought-of examples. You should help me too.

Supposing a boy dreamt to be a billionaire but he's only in his abject farm state at present. Another boy sees that and surmises of his dream as garbage, which follows that it remains a dream still, isn't it? Precisely because the dream of the former boy was deemed so very lofty and impossible by the 2nd that he recognized it was still a dream but found it fitting to replace it with garbage so as to incorporate the acute impossibility factor, or would that not be the case?

So really my point is, I am very confidently saying that most people if not everybody; if they have been through the proper and official ranks of socialization and communication from birth to childhood and adulthood in any country or society, know that all dreams share 1 similar fundamental trait----lofty and ungrounded or fluffy and impossible, and they can detect that trait off the cuff because they know what a dream is like having personally experienced it before, and they must have had one if not many dreams if they are human. Even a child can do so---dream, and KNOW that he is dreaming, therefore also tell the characteristics of dream common to all of mankind because he is of and from mankind. Therefore, I am saying that people (everybody) fundamentally know what a dream is but for some reason unbeknownst (and I don't know because I'm not God), tend to wilfully/deliberately/intentionally or unintentionally/unintendedly/uncontrollably/accidentally think of it as something else. Beats me!

If I will be right about all these above, it follows that the real issue why different people can and would think of dreams as different things is only because they are just confused---which is another word for mental/intellectual imperfection, or wouldn't everybody suspect too? In short, no mind/psyche/soul/spirit/nature is inherently perfect, and since all men are cursed by this imperfection, I have derived the ROOT/BASIC answer to Brad's statement on dreams above, because men are supposed to know that dream is dream and accord the proper respect to the dream protaganist, and not think dream as something else like garbage the 2nd boy in the above given example thought. The 2nd boy was simply confused/clouded/hindered/compromised by something.....( I cant say what the thing is because it is out-of-scope of the topic of professional communication and into religion! So you would have to guess!).

I would foresee people will say my above argument is unorthodox in the academic world because it is divinely derived, and that is all fine and good because people must somehow have an opinion about anything. But even if divine logic is taken out, wouldn't everybody agree that the thing that general clouds men's minds/psyches/souls/spirits/natures are self-centeredness (self-interested) and self-will(self-autonomy) which if anybody really knew, are human traits present in and dissected from that same single divinely prophesied trait I am not allowed to speak of. But since these 2 traits are more secularized, so I will use them to justify my argument.

When the 2nd boy in the above example refuted garbage to dream, he is really operating from these 2 secularized traits of self-centeredness and self-will, DESPITE being a very good friend of the 1st boy ( a point of information I forgot to add in my original example above). Self-centeredness caused such a remark from him because he would rather have the dream for himself, or so I would suspect in such a case for what else could it be? Following which self-will also caused his abrupt remark because given the choice to give an altruistic or favourable response to the 1st boy and one that is self-interested or self-centered, self-will will ALMOST ALWAYS pick the answer IN FAVOUR OF self-centeredness/self-interest, or don't anybody see this case in point? That is just the way ALL unrefined, even REFINED human agencies behave, because that is the most NATURAL AND INTUITIVE human modus operandi; AND, rest assured I AM one of these agents I am speaking of, so is everybody else on earth.

That should adequately, or so I think, solve any of the subjective issues surrounding opinions of different people.

Which also follows that in the very beginning of time ( this is obviously vague but I shall not attempt to explain it away because it again goes out of scope of professional communication into you-know-where) there was absolutely no artful perspective in PC, only absolutely ones! In short, PC was once exclusively an exact science if there was even such a thing as PC then. The only reason PC evolved to what it is today is because men are now more confused/clouded/imperfect than in the past back then, and with that came along an infinite multitude of perspectives which should only really be one but for trouble in interpreting and responding to verbal and non-verbal cues.

In simplistic terms, men are imperfect are confused because they are living in an illusion driven world constituted by the illusions that they are. More specifically, the minds/psyches/natures/spirits of men are the most original illusions which then produce the illusion inherent to every single object we see in the material world, because the material world is the imprint of a plethora of minds/psyches and if the latter is illusion, so the former is also.

I'm not expecting anybody to fully understand everything or even anything. I just thought I should lay down what I think I've got in me is all.

2 Tosses