(This chapter is a version of the Harry Stack Sullivan Society Program Lecture, given at the William Alanson White Institute in February 2000. First published in Experiences in Social Dreaming, Ed. W. G. Lawrence, London: Karnac, 2003. Reprinted with permission of the editor.)

The purposes of this chapter are (1) to describe the phenomenon of social dreaming and (2) to consider the relevant theories of dreaming in the light of this experience. I shall approach these through presenting working hypotheses. A working hypothesis is a sketch of the emergent reality which illumines that reality. If the sketch is found wanting, another working hypothesis can be substituted that better fits the reality that is always in the process of becoming.
The chapter is structured in three parts:

• The phenomenon of the social dreaming matrix.
• Towards a new way of understanding dreams: the epistemic theory.
• Social dreaming @ work.

THE PHENOMENON OF THE SOCIAL DREAMING MATRIX
1. The dream is always enlarging the space of the possible. Through the dream we are brought into the tension between the finite (that which we know) and the infinite (that which is beyond our ken). In the context of social dreaming, I am persuaded that the terms “finite” and “infinite” be used instead of the terms “conscious” and “the unconscious”. The infinite is a mental space that contains all that has ever been thought and is capable of being thought. This space is not “outside” us but is contained in our inner worlds. All thinking begins from no-thought, from an absence, which we experience in our inner world. We make the thought present from first recognizing that it is not there.

Harry Stack Sullivan wrote about the “unattended” when referring to the unconscious. This seems right to me, because the unconscious does not become a thing, is not reified. It is a process.

The first working hypothesis is that dreams, dreaming, and dream work is always inducting us to the tension between the finite and the infinite.

2. Social dreaming takes place in a matrix. People come together to share their dreams. Someone will give an account of a dream at the beginning of a session. Others follow. There is a flow to the dream in that one dreamer intuitively fits his or her dream into the previous one. The taker will offer a comment on the possible links and connections between the dreams. The term “taker” is used to describe the persons who are convening the matrix. Their role is to further the work of the matrix, which is stated in the primary task: to associate to one’s own and other participants’ dreams that are made available to the matrix so as to make links and find connections.

The seating of the matrix is designed to facilitate this work. The chairs are arranged in clusters of five to seven, depending on numbers. All the chairs are linked but are ordered in a pattern, and they all face into the centre of the room. Together the clusters of chairs represent a star-like shape, a bit like a snowflake when seen through a microscope. In a matrix of thirty or so participants, there will be about four to six clusters of chairs. The takers sit anywhere in the matrix.

3. Dreaming is respected as being a representation of the truth of the images and proto-thinking that is the infinite, which is in the minds of the participants. A dream will often be a fragment but, nevertheless, is seen as a potential synthesis. Social dreaming is a method of arriving at the meaning of the dreams through dream work.

The key tool is “free association”. Free association was proposed by Sigmund Freud in The Interpretation of Dreams (1900a), though it was not his original idea. The takers’ work is basically to associate to the dreams in order to find connections among them. In this, the takers are working at the finite of the dream and the emotional experience of the infinite from which dreams arise. In this way, they, in a sense, model how to work with dreams in a matrix.

4. I have used the term “matrix” to describe the configuration of participants. This term was first proposed when social dreaming existed only in the mind, in imagination. To the best of my knowledge, such a configuration had never been consciously convened before Patricia Daniel and myself did so. It was thought that if it was to be called a “social dreaming group”, it would be in the area where what had been learned about groups would obtrude into the work of the matrix, which is to transact dreams and to be working at the multiple dreams-in-association. In short, the fantasy was that dreams would speak with dreams. Although we each dream individually, participants seem to intuit that their dream is not a personal possession but belongs to the larger whole matrix, which is always in a process of discovery, or of meaning becoming a version of the truth.

In the first social dreaming matrix in 1982 (conducted in the Tavistock Institute) the hypothesis that it would be possible to dream socially was quickly established. Not only was dreaming over and above the individual participants, so to speak, but it also evoked new dimensions that had rarely been possible in the classic, dyadic situation. Social dreaming ushered us into a new experience of dreaming. Why was this so?

The term “matrix” had been intuitively chosen. It proved to be correct. A matrix is different from a group. A matrix is derived from the word for a “uterus” or “womb”. It is a place from which something is bred, grows, and develops. Matrix describes the space from which everything that exists in our Universe, indeed the cosmos, has its origins. Matrix exists before mankind developed groups. And it may well be that group is a defence against the experience of the formlessness of matrix The social dreaming matrix, purposely convened in the here and now, is a reflection of the primordial matrix of humanity.

What can be said about the matrix in the context of social dreaming can be offered as a second working hypothesis: a matrix is a different “container” for receiving dreams, and so the “contained” of the dream alters. The “content” of the dream becomes different from that delivered in other contexts.

5. A social dreaming matrix evokes a different array, or suite, of dreams. Transference and countertransference would be part of the domain of a “group’‘. It was felt intuitively that such issues would interfere with the work of a matrix, just as would basic assumption behaviour and the like. In a social dreaming matrix, transference and countertransference issues are not addressed directly in the here-and-now of the matrix. If the participants have faith in the dream and dreaming, such issues will be voiced in the dream. We have found that if they are addressed directly they rob the dream of these emotional experiences. Once they are indicated in a dream, the takers will make some comment. For instance, from our work in companies we know that such issues will be present. Once feelings on authority figures are verbalized in the dream, they can be associated to and developed. The transference is to the dream, not to the dreamer or the takers.

Participants in a group are concerned, at some level, about being part of the universe of meaning, and the group spends most of its life tussling about the meaning and non-meaning of being in the group. In a social dreaming matrix, because of its work of free association, what emerges is a multi-verse of meaning. A matrix can tolerate this, and the members do not think they are going mad (psychotic), because such a multi-verse makes sense for them. This is consistent with dream life.

The third working hypothesis is: the dream arises from the matrix of emotional experience that exists prior to the formation of group.

6. Grotstein (1979) makes a useful distinction between the dreamer who dreams the dream and the dreamer who understands the dream. In a social dreaming matrix, there are as many dreamers-who-understand-the-dream as there are participants. It tends to be that the taker is the first to free associate, but it can happen that participants will be associating before the takers. In the end, it is the dreamer-who-dreams-the-dream who takes on the function of understanding in the sense of making meaning. The social dreaming matrix is a socio-democratic endeavour.

7. When in 1982 in the first social dreaming matrix it became apparent that the act of dreaming was enlarged in the matrix, I could not formulate the experience.

I now see dreaming quite differently. Here, I follow the philosopher Schopenhauer, who posed the question: “May not our whole life be a dream or more exactly is there sure criterion of the distinction between dream and reality?” Miguel de Unamuno gave an answer to the question when he wrote that the poets of all ages always have been dismayed at the passing of life. He goes on to make the point that whereas Calderon de la Barca simply said that “life is a dream”, it is to Shakespeare that we owe the insight that “we are such stuff as dreams are made on”. Shakespeare “makes ourselves a dream, a dream that dreams” (Unamuno, 1954, p. 39).

8. The social dreaming matrix has caused me to reflect on the content of the dream, and what it is achieving. I believe that dreaming in a social dreaming matrix inducts us to the world of the socio-centric. Bion makes a very useful distinction between the world of the egocentric and that of the socio-centric. This distinction is between narcissism and social-ism. In the introduction to Experiences in Groups (1961) he says that as a psychoanalyst one can look at groups via two vertices. The first is that of the pair and all the minutiae of transferential detail between the consultant and the participant. This is the oedipal situation. It is also, I think, to do with what takes place within the individual. But, second, Bion writes that one can also look at the group in terms of what he calls sphinx. This is related to problems of knowledge and scientific method —that is, how one arrives at knowledge. Very firmly, a social dreaming matrix takes us into thinking about the other and frees us from being gagged and bound in the world of the “I”.

So I have a fourth working hypothesis: the experience of a social dreaming matrix places participants in the domain of sphinx—that is, in the realm of knowledge, scientific method, and truth searching.

In this hypothesis I am reflecting something of the social character of dreams. Paul Lippmann, in a brilliant article on the nature of dreams (1998), makes the hypothesis that the nuances and styles of social influence can be found in dreams. He refers to Erich Fromm, Erik Erikson, and Montague Ullman and suggests that dreams contribute to social life and character.

The varied experiences in dreams may be thought of continuously exploring, portraying, rehearsing, commenting upon, criticizing, adding to, varying and improvising on aspects of the socially shared characteristics of a people … in the deepest privacy of dreaming, the culture’s ways are being developed, tested, explored, and reinforced. [Lippmann, 1998, pp. 203-204]

TOWARDS NEW WAYS OF UNDERSTANDING DREAMS
1. I begin with a dream on social dreaming, which occurred during the night of 13 September 1999.

In the dream, two of us are rebuilding an ancient, fortified tower on the top of a low, craggy mountain, which commands a view of a valley. My colleague, who is a co-founder of Symbiont Ventures, is the builder. He is studying a report that has come from the expert on historical monuments. In the report it says that we have to build an extra floor between the first two stories and the final one, which is a battlement. The extra floor looks like a pudding, or a soufflé. It is like the bulbous towers that one finds in a Russian Orthodox church, but not so regular. Then the topmost fortifications will be superimposed.
As happens in many dreams, this building work is done instantaneously. My colleague is querying this opinion of the expert, but I am insisting that we follow his advice. During this we have found the visor of William Wallace. We are not sure if it is empty or not. It is not, we find, and we scoop the head out.

Later in the dream I descend to the valley. There are two perfect Georgian houses, each a mirror of the other from a distance. When one gets closer, I find that one is made of stressed concrete, mimicking in every detail the features of the original house. I find that the concrete house has been built by trade unionists as a conference centre only a few years ago. In the dream I go down the long drive that leads from these two houses. I hear voices. Recognizing that apparently one woman talks in the same way as both my mother and my wife, I go towards them/her across some wild moor, which is reached through a gate. The woman is talking to the others in her group of the opinion of the historical monuments’ expert. She says, in effect, that both opinions are right: to have an extra floor and not to have one. I meet with them, and the dream ends abruptly and I do not have the answer I crave.

Associating afterwards to the dream. There is something around about my willingness to listen to experts. William Wallace was a great Scottish leader who challenged the king of England. Do I want to be a leader against the Central Europeans? Why are we in the dream scooping out his head from his visor? To get at his brains! (William, of course, is one of my first names.) I have been digging out the brains of people for years, from books.

The stressed-concrete Georgian house built by trade unionists? Who built which house —Jung or Freud? Assume that the trade unionists are those who follow the rules of their masters but at the same time are often in conflict. Are they psychoanalysts?

The dream illustrates vividly the dilemma I face in pursuing social dreaming. Do I enter into understanding it without memory and desire? Does the matrix interpose itself between dream and reality? In terms of my dream, the restored tower on top of the crag is social dreaming, which has a long past but a short history. The soufflé-like structure —is that the social dreaming matrix?

Can I allow myself to try to understand it with negative capability —that is, being in mysteries and doubts without irritably reaching after reason? Can I experience social dreaming as it is? Like all of us, I have been listening to the voices of the dead and, on occasion, imbuing their words with tongues of fire.

2. Erich Fromm wrote in The Forgotten Language (1951) that there were three approaches to the understanding of dreams. First, the Freudian view postulates that all dreams are expressions of the irrational and asocial nature of human beings. Second, Jung’s view is that all dreams are a revelation of unconscious wisdom, a wisdom that transcends the individual. Third, there is the view that dreams ex¬press mental activity of whatever kind and are expressions both of our irrational strivings as well as our reason and morality; dreams express both the best and the worst in us as human beings, for they cannot be controlled or managed.

3. To go back to my dream of September 1999, for something like twenty years I have been hewing out the brains of previous writers on dreams and dreaming. Of the three views, I empathize most with that of Jung. At the same time, I do not know which of the smaller eighteenth-century houses, representing Jung and Freud, is the facsimile or not. But one was built by trade unionists. I think that they are those people who know about dreams and, by extrapolation, believe they know about social dreaming. When I took the first social dreaming matrix in Israel I was assured by one psychoanalyst before the matrix began that there was nothing new in this, that she had been doing it for years.

4. I have sympathy with Fromm’s third way of interpreting, which says that dreams are an expression of mental activity. It is possible to cut through the various “schools” of interpretation if we ask ourselves from what or where do dreams arise.

5. Trying to understand the conscious mind and disentangling it from what we know of brain is notoriously difficult. The brain is, like the body, objective, exposed, external, and public. Mind, on the other hand, is a subjective entity, is private, internal, and hidden. To identify the nature of consciousness depends on the existence of that same consciousness.

The brain registers everything that happens to the individual. This can be called the “movie-in-the-brain” (Damasio, 1999b, p. 77). The movie is a metaphor for the integrated and unified composites of diverse sensory images that can be experienced. We generate a sense of self in relation to this movie. The self is nested in the movie. But we are never fully consciously attentive to this movie. Much of it will be unattended to, and this is the content of dream. It is almost as if dream comes from the movie seen from the rear of the screen.

6. I follow an epistemic theory of dreams first propounded by Wilfred Bion. This takes us much further than Freud, Melanie Klein, or Jung. The theory is based on Bion’s view that psychoanalysis is about the evolving process that make for mind: “the mind is seen to develop on the basis of the acquisition of knowledge, knowledge about itself and knowledge about its objects, internal and external” (Meltzer, 1984, p. 68).

Bion outlined his theory of thinking/dreaming through three functions: alpha functions, alpha-type elements, and beta-type elements. To be sure, Bion (1967b) makes clear that this is a mythical apparatus, and he invites others to fill out these functions from their experience to make them meaningful and useful (Meltzer, 1984, p. 72).

Bion proposed that the alpha functions operate on the sense impressions and the emotions. If they are successful they are transformed into alpha-type elements that are suitable for dream storage and subsequent thinking. If they are not capable of transformation, they remain as beta-type elements; they remain as undigested facts and not available for thought; they become things in themselves. He describes beta-type elements as being “the matrix from which thoughts can be supposed to arise. It partakes of the quality of inanimate object and psychic object without any form of distinction between the two. Thoughts are things, things are thoughts, and they have personality” (Bion, 1963, p. 22).

7. Since the times of Freud, Jung, Fromm, and Bion, quantum physics has been developed and this can now help in our understanding of the processes of thinking. Though they each foreshadowed quantum mechanics, particularly Jung with his concept of synchronicity and Bion with his elements, there was no theory of dreaming firmly grounded in the new sciences.

Every atom of our body and mind contains, at the sub-atomic level, both waves and particles simultaneously. Every elemental event in neurophysiology is related to the other elemental events as entities in the cosmos at large through waves and particles. The Heisenberg principle states that you can measure either one or the other, but never both at the same time. This is because only a wave or a particle exists at one time. In a superimposed state, a wave of all the atoms we possess contains all that has ever been known and all that ever will be known of the Cosmos. Waves periodically collapse, or coalesce, or configure, as particles. When it is in this form it becomes a piece of information, a fragment of knowledge, a shard of the infinite. Waves are immortal, invisible, and hidden from our eyes.

Bion foreshadowed this. Beta-elements are waves; when they coalesce into particles, they become alpha-elements. As beta-elements they become part of a universe of strong emotions, though we are unable to use them for thinking. They constitute the infinite that each of us contains, which becomes a formidable obstacle for making experiences finite. The tension between the finite and the infinite arises because the emotional elements sabotage the process. “In effect, there exist things that are too frightening or too difficult to contemplate” (Biran, 1997, pp. 31-32).

8. The quality of the information contained as a particle in our dreaming and thinking will depend to an extent on our ability to comprehend –our intelligence— but, most important of all, on the mental disposition we bring to bear on the act of participation. A dream is a subjective experience that no one else has had in exactly the same form. I use the term “participation” in two senses: the first, to partake of; the second, to engage subjectively with the dream. The dream is not an object to be regarded through the equivalent of a one way mirror. It has to be made in the inner world of the observer, as natural scientists found out well over fifty years ago.

I can illustrate what is in mind here by referring to Harold Bloom’s anti-reductionist point about poetry. He says that the meaning of a poem can only be another poem:

The sad truth is that poems don’t have presence, unity or meaning….What then does a poem, possess or create? Alas, a poem has nothing, and creates nothing. Its presence is a promise, part of the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Its unity is in the goodwill of the reader …its meaning is just that there is or rather was, another poem. [quoted in Rorty, 1989, p. 41]

I submit that this could equally well apply to dreaming and dreams. A dream is a particle. To arrive at the meaning of a dream requires free association, through which a fresh meaning for the dream is minted. The poem is replaced with another poem of the reader. We participate in the dream work of a matrix through free association, which is to give our subjective feelings and experiences the highest value and acclaim. Free association is the most subversive of activities in the twentieth century. Christopher Bollas writes in The Mystery of Things (1999) that in our linear and goal-directed world, where consciousness is highly focused and is directed at redemption through the scientific and technological endeavour, to free associate —where one says whatever crosses one’s mind— is “to undermine the structure of Western epistemology” (Bollas, 1999, p. 63).

9. To engage in free association in the matrix—to be taking the dream as a particle and thinking around it in a free way in order to find/make meaning—is to be approximating, to a greater or lesser degree, what is contained in infinity. Infinity will never be known. As Wilfred Bion pointed out, the noumenon can never be known. Infinity is the O, the god-head. The dream, which is a state of thinking, can be termed the phenomena. (“All dreamers are thinkers”, as Bion reminds us.)

10. The evidence for the infinite being made present in dreaming comes from Bollas, who has written on the “unthought known”. The Unthought known has proved to be a useful concept in organizational analysis. The unthought known is not a collection of abstract representations but is the outcome of countless meetings, often in tranquil¬lity, between the infant as a subject and his or her object world (Bollas, 1987, p. 52). I think that embedded in these encounters is an inkling of the infinite as we make our relationships in the finite world. The infinite is not only something out there as objective fact but is also in here in our inner worlds. To engage with the infinity that is publicly construed, we have first to construe it in ourselves. The ecology of forgotten dreams is the infinite.

What comes to be known when it is thought depends on the opportunities and the impediments presented by the eco-niche that each of us inhabits. By “eco” I am referring to the whole natural world in which we are located. Loosely, I am using it in the sense of ecological. By “niche” I mean the slice of the environment that we occupy. I have the idea that even a single-cell organism dreams, or participates in proto-dreaming. Thus, evolution comes about in the context of the eco-niche the organism inhabits.

The eco-niche occupied by an Indian peasant’s child is different from that of someone born in Scotland, or born in Kosovo in the last ten years, or born in Manhattan or the Bronx. This is further complicated for the child by the wealth of the parents, their psychopathology, the educational opportunities he or she has, and so on. The figures in, and the context of, the eco-niche are always presenting opportunities or thwarting the child. It is the child’s ability to construe these events as providing a chance for his or her development that introduces him or her to fate and a sense of destiny (Bollas, 1989).

Dreams reflect life in the eco-niche and are always encouraging us to expand the space of the possible. The dream will be a mirroring of actual experiences lived in the day-to-day world. So, from the residues of dreams, forgotten or otherwise, we make a life from their shadows.

11. Ullman (1975) writes that dreams come from the “black hole of the psyche” (p. 9). This is a wonderful image. The dream has an “explicate” meaning or interpretation. Through the process of “revealing the unknown implicit in the known” (Sharpe, 1937, p. 18), one can experience the growth of language. In particular, there is a growth of “poetic diction” which has its roots in the infinite as well as the poetic. The poet and the dreamer have the same task, which is to convey experience through language that is “simple, sensuous and passionate” (Milton). Simile, metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, or onomatopoeia, for instance, all have their place in how communication is framed as the dreamer struggles in the immanent world of the day-to-day to give a sense of having been in the transcendent world of the night. These figures of speech are ways whereby in common discourse we convey our sense of the infinite. In short, in a matrix participants are discovering the difference between thoughts of the forgotten past and thinking that is of the present. Within the explicate meaning is another set of meanings embedded in the “implicate”. So working out the meaning of dreams is a continual movement between the two—between the explicate and the implicate.

The fifth working hypothesis can be stated. Social dreaming ushers into the infinite the implicate—the distinction between alpha-type and beta-type elements—which signals the world of quantum reality that leads us away from the intrapsychic, narcissistic mode of understanding dreaming.

SOCIAL DREAMING @ WORK
1. We work in organizations as social systems. This conceptualization was introduced about sixty years ago. There are two social systems in operation at one and the same time. There is the overt one of consciousness. This is where people share a primary task and cooperate about what work is to be done. Alongside this is the other— the system of parallel processes. This is the one of free association, the stream of consciousness, the musings in the mind, possessed by every human being. All the people in a company share this stream of consciousness, composed of waves and particles. There is a communication at a primordial, intuitive level, which we would want to deny.

The world is composed of an infinite number of social systems, in each of which there is the unattended parallel social system of free thoughts and dreams, unencumbered by logic. Every person who participates in these has dreams. They may be forgotten or regarded as so much junk mail, to be discarded. But we know that people dream. The dream is a particle version of the dreaming that goes on all the time as a wave. The means by which the particle becomes apparent to us is an achievement of consciousness.

How do we have the unattended part of the discourse of a social system like a company? The answer, predictably, is to convene a social dreaming matrix, as has been done by a number of colleagues.

2. In a consultation that I conducted using social dreaming, the first dreamer gave a dream:

She is in the garden of a house she used to occupy. The garden is profusely overgrown. She feels that underneath all this wild boscage, there is a finer, original garden. Sometimes she sees the lineaments of it. She perceives what might be the garden when she goes to the top floor of the house for a bird’s eye view.

This simple dream turned out to be the consultation. They were a set of people providing therapy for the underprivileged, and their founders had left them. They were doing good-enough work. Part of the nature of their work was to deal with unspeakable tragedy. Something of this came out in the consultation, as well as in the dynamics occur¬ring between them. The working hypothesis we arrived at was that the nature of their work was such that it was difficult to keep hope alive.

3. Marc Maltz and Martin Walker (1998) conducted a consultation and used dreams on-line—that is, dreams were put on computer by the participants via email. Maltz and Walker confirmed that social dreaming is a powerful tool for reaching the unconscious, or infinite, in organizations. There is always a tension between those who would want to interpret and those who are content to associate. Free association is open-ended, whereas interpretation curtails exploration.

4. The sixth working hypothesis is: the social dreaming matrix, when conducted in an organization, comes to contain the disowned aspect(s) of the social system. This disowned aspect (e.g. ‘‘feminine authority”) is symbolic of all the other disowned aspects of the system. If the disowned comes into the matrix, could it not become part of the discourse of an organization?
The seventh working hypothesis is: the experience of the social dreaming matrix allows participants to tolerate the unknown, to be in doubts, mysteries, and uncertainties. This is anathema in the company organization. Notice how when an innovative idea is produced, immediately a working party is set up to look at its feasibility. Very often I have the feeling that people in organizations are caught in acting-out the hallucinations of their bosses. A hallucination, I suggest is a no-dream that can be controlled, managed, and manipulated.

Crick and Mitchison (1983) have put forward the hypothesis that all dreams are garbage, in an attempt to discredit the dream. Clearly, I am not of that view. We live out our lives in a materialistic and nature-controlling era, worshipping technology as the greatest of our gods. The dream, however, gnaws away at this by offering us each night a chance to question this, to pose existential questions of ourselves that relate to the nature of the lives that we lead.

Whatever exploration we make of our dreams, we have humbly to accept what Shakespeare said in A Midsummer Night’s Dream when he wrote: “I will get Peter Quince to write a ballad of this dream. It shall be called Bottom’s Dream, because it hath no bottom.”

Dreaming is bottomless, but it is still a great adventure! It is bottomless because dreaming comes from the vast, timeless infinite that is the shadowland of our existence. From this mysterious shadowland has come all that we as human beings know, and have made, in our finite world.

I end with a final, and eighth, working hypothesis: a social dream-ing matrix is a transitional object phenomenon, or experience, and as such is the theatre of the infinite or the unconscious. The play in it is serious, for herein are the roots of our civilization and creativity.
If the response to a poem is another poem, the response to a dream is another dream. I hope that, in reading this chapter, you will have responded with another, one much better than the one you have just read.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bion, W.R. (1963), Elements of Psychoanalysis, London: Heinemann
Bion, W.R. (1967a), Experiences in Groups, London: Tavistock Publications
Bion, W.R. (1967b), Second Thoughts, London: Heinemann Medical Books
Biran, H. (1997), Myths, memories and roles –how they live again in the group process, Free Associations, 7 (Part 1, No.4): 31-38
Bollas, C. (1987), The Shadow of the Object, New York: Columbia University Press, London: Free Association Books, 1994.
Bollas, C. (1989), Forces of Destiny, London: Free Association Books, 1992
Bollas, C. (1999), The Mystery of Things, London: Routledge
Crick, F. & Mitchison, G. (1983), The function of dream sleep, Nature, 304: 111-114
Damasio, A. (1999b), How the brain created the mind, Scientific American, 281 (6):74-79
Freud, S. (1900), The Interpretation of Dreams. S.E., 4 & 5
Fromm, E. (1951), The Forgotten Language, New York: Grove Press
Grotstein, J. S. (1979), Who is the dreamer that dreams the dream and who is the dreamer who understands it? Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 15: 110-116. Also in J.S. Grotstein (Ed.), Do I Dare Disturb the Universe? London: Karnac, 1981
Lippmann, P. (1998), On the private and social mature of dreams, Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 34 (2): 195-222
Maltz, M. & Walker, M. (1998), Simultaneity and Parallel Process: an online Social Dreaming Matrix, in W.G. Lawrence (Ed.), Social Dreaming @ Work, London: Karnac
Meltzer, D. (1984), Dream-Life, Strathclyde: Clunie Press
Rorty, R. (1989), Contingency, Irony and Solidarity, Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press
Sharpe, E.F. 1937), Dream Analysis, London: Hogarth Press, 1961
Sullivan, H. S. (1937), A note on the implications of psychiatry, the study of interpersonal relations, for investigations in the social sciences, in The Fusion of Psychiatry and Social Science (pp15-29), New York: W.W. Norton, 1964
Ullman, M. (1975), The transformation process in dreams, American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 19 (2): 8-10
Unamuno, M. de (1954), The Tragic Sense of Life, New York: Dover