Just got off the "Dream Patterning" teleseminar with Dr. Michael Conforti and thought it was awesome! I am not one of those individuals to whom working with dreams comes naturally, nor have I ever had specific training in dreamwork other than a class here or there as part of the core curriculum in my grad programs.
I really loved what Michael was saying about "contra naturam", this idea of Jung's which Marie Louise von Franz built on, which means "contrary to nature". In the presentation tonight (and I hope to do a blogpost using my notes if I can ever get around to it), Michael shared the story of a dream in which a mother bear was out playing with her cubs in the snow (i.e. during winter). He suggests the first thing to look at when trying to understand a dream is to see what is "against nature". A bear should be in hibernation during the winter!--not out playing with her cubs in her slow metabolic state when she's supposed to be hibernating. Thus, the dream may be interpreted as a warning or a suggestion that the dreamer should be hibernating or nurturing herself (and not out being more active).
This is a very tangible method or step that helps me begin to interpret a dream. Does anyone else have thoughts on this concept, or use it in your own dream interpretation practice, or have you read or written someting about it? I remember seeing the term somewhere just recently in depth psych readings but couldn't for the life of me tell you where.
Does this idea resonate with you and make it more concrete to work with your own dreams and images?
Replies
Unfortunately, I was teaching during the seminar and so missed it. Wondered if there was another way to catch it online? I do have a comment, however, about the example given above, where "contra naturam" is taken to be a symptom of what is "wrong" with the dreamer in the dream; for the presupposition here is that the dreamer should go back to fitting the "natural" frame of things, for a bear "naturally" hibernates in winter etc... Based on this example, I would have to say that this interpretation is a total misunderstanding of what Jung and the alchemists thought about "contra naturam." The alchemical merit of the notion contra naturam is here disinfected of its psychological edge and made to re-inforce the state of unconsciousness of the unio naturalis. For the alchemists, contra naturam characterized the entire nature of the alchemical process, i.e., of individuation as a whole, and represents a break from the animal-like state of unconsciousness in the unio naturalis. The notion of contra naturam is a radical break with the romantic idealization of "Nature" and of just being "natural" about life. No, the psyche, the development of consciousness, are by their very nature "against nature." The psyche and psychological transformation are in themselves profoundly contra naturam, that is, they require work AGAINST one's nature, otherwise everybody would "naturally" individuate with the growth of the body.
Of course, this idea, that individuation means work against oneself, that our human nature is always already against nature, would not be so popular in our present-day cults, whereas the idea of just being "natural" and aligning yourself with an idealized "nature" (which doesn't include the catastrophes and thehorror of the "natural" world), will attract every Tom, Dick, and Harry who just wants to "go with the flow."
From this point of view, the dream (taken as an isolated fragment) would suggest that the dreamer ought to stop hibernating in the winter of the soul and should go out and play with her cubs, for psychic development is profoundly contra naturam. Whereas the interpretation offered by Comforti not only brings "comfort", it encourages the dreamer to remain asleep in the contentment with the status quo. Are not people today for the most part hibernating in this winter of the world soul? And aren't they just doing what comes "naturally" for them?
I think that's where Alison was going with that. How, for example, is my very lifestyle 'contra naturam'? Our culture has evolved dangerously in this direction resulting in a 'gap' betweenthe 'natural' and the 'not natural'.
Norland, I might say to all of this that Individuation is Contra Naturam to the human ego but not to the soul so finding the place wehere those two converge in each of us is critical. The link to the recording is at the top of the home page in the News section. I encourage you to listen as Dr. Conforti (just a note on the spelling) does adress exactly why he suggests the dream about the bear is NOT telling the dreamer to stop hibernating & go out to play.
And of course, doing the work on the dream is the alchemical work that represents consciousness in lieu of the undifferentiated flow.
Last, Ed, I agree completely how important it is to remember every symbol is dynamic with multiple ongoing interpretations depending on the context. That was touched on as well.
Some random thoughts re: "opus contra naturam," the alchemist's Art . . . it's so tricky, I think. On the one hand Jung says the drive to individuation is instinctual, and on the other, the purely natural man who driven by instincts is simultaneously muddled, if not victimized, by them. In sorting out ourselves it seems we cannot let Nature have her own way entirely, yet we must be constantly aware of what she has to say. I think the example of gardening is a great one - if I simply let Nature garden for me I will have a riot of blackberries, thistles, broom and not a hellebore, daphne or lily to be seen. On the other hand if I never let those so-called weedy plants thrive, I weaken the soil and lose important habitat for birds, bees and snakes. Consciousness bears this terrible responsibility, ie to be perpetually riddled by dilemma.
In dream, I think we also have to take this bi-polar view. What is "contra naturam" stand out and has us take notice - in one way and/or another.
And following on what Laura said - if we don't allow ourselves to be swayed the archetypal energies of the Self, we risk staying stuck, small, or deluded and inflated. But giving over to the full force of that drive to wholeness can mean untold torment. For instance, on a large scale, what is good for Gaia may not be good for the human race.
Bonnie, I will confine my comments on the teleseminar to this one point as I am still processing much of it but I have to say that the "contrary to nature" subject immediately brought to my mind something I remember reading here that really jumped out at me, even though at the time I did not know why it jumped out at me so fiercely. It was Colleen Hendrick's reply to bob d's dream of the sporty convertible in Manhattan posted in the thread that you began re. Dream Tweets.
The dreamer is out of alignment with the way they are moving through the collective (sporty, new car isn't a reality for the dreamer) - Manhattan isn't hilly, the dreamer is out of alignment with their surroundings. The dreamer is on the fence, unable to make a decision, likely due to a mis-orientation with their work in the collective - career...The dreamer appears distracted by the blue water, not focused on the decision of what bridge.
I see tonight that Colleen came here via the Assisi Institute and after hearing tonight's material, I understand why her take on bob's dream stirred something inside of me. Instead of reading it with/through ego-enhancing, preferentially positive overlays, she took up the sword of discernment and discretion and sliced right though it. I did not fully grok what she was doing until I heard Dr. Conforti tonight, and then it all clicked in for me. This is probably the big takeaway for me tonight, ie, stop pitching symbols, images, outcomes... into my own often naive and very defended, preferential bias as to what I would like to believe the dream is saying to me. For example: I can recall at least three times recently in which I have decoded my own dreams with: "This bodes well for me/my path/my process, etc..." How do I know that? What part(s) of me so desperately need to believe that? And why?
Much growth therein.