PHENOMENOLOGICAL CONCEPT VS.

PHENOMENOLOGICAL METHOD: A Critique of Medard Boss on Drea s

Eugene T. Gendlin

I
In this essay I wish to distinguish phenomenological method from phenomenological concepts. Boss interprets dreams with phenomenological concepts, but the method with which he applies these concepts to dreams and dreamers is open to question. Boss imposes his scheme of ideas and also his personal values onto a dream with as little justification as is done in the methods of interpretation he attac s. !y critique is both positive and negative. I will first discuss Boss"s great positive contribution. In what sense, e#actly, is Boss"s dream interpretation phenomenological and valuable$ %. &uring a lifetime of wor Boss has helped us to brea out of a view of human beings 'and of dreams( which translated human e#perience into some other vocabulary. Behind or beneath human e#perience, supposedly, there were other forces more truly e#planatory of us and of our dreams. The dream for )reud is a result of certain events in energy mechanics, partial discharges. Behind the dream, for *ung, the ancient pagan gods of mythology have their coming and going. Boss rejects these con+ ,-age ./01structions. Beyond the dream Boss considers only the actual wa ing life of the dreamer. In freeing us from these translations Boss has helped us move beyond a great deal of violence done to human e#perience. It is well nown that many different interpretations can be constructed for any one dream within any one of these translational theories. There never were criteria to decide among several possible interpretations within any one theory. But this fact was rarely ta en account of as a caution. 2ather, an appeal was made to the public by a claim of 3science.3 The dreamer was usually offered only one interpretation by a given practitioner. The supposed superiority or scientific validity of the translational vocabulary gave prestige and credibility to such an interpretation. 4ater I will point out a method with which even these translational dream interpretations can be used phenomenologically. But we are grateful to Boss for helping us brea out of this scientistic+reductive mode of interpretation. .. Boss"s interpretive concepts are interactional rather than intrapsychic. )reud, *ung, 'and others( interpret dreams in terms of a subjectivity. The human is conceived of as being within the s in envelope. Interactions with others are viewed as results stemming from this internal personality structure. )or Boss, in contrast, humans are the interactional living. 35e are nothing other than receptive, alert world+disclosiveness3 ,%, p. .671.

The common sense view of humans in ordinary language 'not only in a theory li e )reud"s and *ung"s( also considers humans as individual and partly internal entities. Boss has helped us both in our ordinary language and in our theories to avoid seeing ourselves as isolated entities rather than as beings who are our interactions with others. 8nly if one e#plores phenomenologically one"s seemingly internal feelings, does one always discover their intentionality. 8ur feelings are always about. . . . 5e are never just angry. 5e are always angry at . . . , afraid of . . . , confused in regard to. . . . 9lways some at first opaque, odd feeling opens into comple# perceptions and sensings of . . . our situations and the other people in our situations, and how we are living at and with them. Boss says we 3are never given to ourselves as . . . bo#+li e,3 or as an 3:+subject . . . which happens to possess . . . one property ,-age ./71 among others3 'p. .67(. 5e are always 3already "out there" with that which we encounter3 'p. .67(. 6. Boss"s main interpretive concepts are themselves powerful, and deserve to be adopted 'among other concepts( as ways of considering a dream. Boss chiefly uses two concepts; how one in fact 3bears3 oneself toward others, toward the world and life< one"s as yet unlived 3possibilities3 of bearing oneself toward life and others. These concepts are not at all obvious. They deserve attention. 9n ordinary person e#amining a dream might notice many aspects of it without noticing, as such, the dreamer's bearing towards others and the world. =imilarly, an ordinary person might not as ; is there in this dream something which is ahead of the dreamer"s present wa ing capacities, a possibility in life not yet actuali>ed$ Boss"s contributions to dream interpretation, as I understand them, are these three; the rejection of translations of dreams into something other than human living< the interactional view of humans< the two basic concepts themselves, 3bearing3 and 3possibility.3 ?ow, what e#actly ma es these contributions phenomenological$ It is quite clear that they are. There is first the refusal to reduce human e#perience, dreaming or being awa e, to theoretical constructs. There is, secondly, the phenomenological discovery that we are always already in the world, thrown in situations with others, and not primarily subjectivities, li e a thing considered as a subject of traits. Thirdly, 3bearing oneself toward3 and 3possibilities3 are @eideggerian concepts which point to basic structural parameters of our actual living.

II
4et us now turn from phenomenological concepts to phenomenological method. I will try to show that there is a great problem in Boss"s method; many different interpretations of the same dream, using the same concepts of 3bearing3 and 3possibility,3 can be made with any one dream. I will try to show this point with some of Boss"s e#amples. This problem besets other methods of dream interpretation, too, as I have already said.

9s we saw, the general concepts 3bearing3 and 3possibility3 are ,-age .//1 phenomenological, but the mere use of these concepts does not assure the phenomenological groundedness of anything specific we assert about a given person"s bearing or unlived possibilities. 5e can argue that a person is best characteri>ed in these terms, or that any person will have some characteristic bearing and some unlived possibilities. But from hearing a given dream, or from observing the person in wa ing life, different interpreters will arrive at different conclusions. They will choose different dimensions to loo at, and they may also disagree about the person on a given dimension. This variety of opinions is somewhat analogous to the different viewpoints in philosophy and in any other field. 4et us as how phenomenology grounds its assertions in terms of method. 4et us then as what would be an analogous method for dream interpretation. In a phenomenological method, as I shall elaborate it, each step of conceptuali>ation provides itself with its own ground by lifting out an 'until then hidden( phenomenal aspect. 8nce such an aspect is focused as it shows itself, it is then more than simply the conceptuali>ation. If the phenomenon is not more than one"s language, if one has only an assertion no matter how clear it might be, the approach and the language fail to fit out something that is showing itself and thereby lose their grounds for their meaning. In an analogous method for dreams, what might function as the phenomenon to be lifted out by a successful interpretation which other conflicting interpretations fail to lift out$ @ow do we find the phenomenon$ )or e#ample, if we characteri>e the dreamer"s bearing in the dream+story as 3passive and selfish,3 and someone else calls it 3willing to grow and courageous,3 what e#actly might be lifted out by some, but not all, of these interpretations$ 5hen discussing a dream and hearing oneself and others ma e various interpretive statements, quite often nothing beyond speculations happens in response. Then, suddenly, one interpretive statement leads to some piece of wa ing e#perience which becomes remar ably apparent, as though it pops in. -ursuing that occurrence, there may be a flood of aspects of living which are unmista ably related and brought out by the dream+plus+interpretation. ?ew aspects or new imports may in addition present themselves with impact. !any further steps may be suggested and pursued. Each step of lifting out brings much ,-age ./A1 more than each interpretive statement itself says. !ight such an adaption of phenomenological method to dreams solve the problem of arbitrary or ungrounded interpretations of dreams$ 4et me illustrate the problem further. In one patient"s dream 'published by a *ungian analyst(, the patient dreamt that the analyst is performing surgery on him. Then an un nown white+haired man appears, cuts two pieces of his own flesh out of himself and grafts them onto the dreamer"s abdomen. Thereby the dreamer"s life is saved. Boss rejects the *ungian interpretation that the white+haired man is the 3old wise man,3 a mythological 3higher3 figure said to be found in many people"s phantasies and dreams as well as in myths. Boss rejects this 3higher3 spiritual dimension, as well as the dreamer"s e#perience of being helped, saved, and of gladly accepting e#perience. Boss"s interpretation;

. . . the possibility of being a masculine, mature, selfless helpful fellow+man dawns upon him while dreaming. The reason why the good dream+man is un nown might lie in the fact that this most mature way of being a human being is still very unfamiliar to the dreamer. . . . this possibility for bearing himself in the world could only appear as a stranger. It is disconcerting ,that1 . . .in the dream the saving of the patient"s life was brought about through a transplant from another person. . . . The patient in surgery remains purely passive3 'p. .B.(. Boss selects the 3selfless3 giving of one"s own flesh as 3good, mature3 and a possible way of bearing oneself which would be new for the dreamer. But many people have done too much of that. @ow can Boss now to pic 3selfless3 as the right unreali>ed possibility$ Boss selects 3purely passive3 as the bearing shown in the dream, and decides that it is a bad thing. The *ungian analyst thought it a good thing that the patient accepted aid. Boss views the passivity in relation to life. The *ungian analyst thought of it as accepting aid from a wider aspect of the patient than his ego. But it might well be that the patient usually over+controls and is not open to the wider living which he always already is. '8ne can readily transpose many *ungian and )reudian conceptions into the terms of 3bearing3 and 3possibility3 in the world, even though *ungians and )reudians do not usually use them that way.( @ow do we now whether active or receptive is good in this ,-age .AC1 instance$ 9nd how does Boss light upon just this dimension, this pair of opposites, this issue$ Boss also provides us with no warrant for selecting his characteri>ation of the old man as one who is 3selfless3 and 3masculine.3 It is not clear that just these adjectives would be more significant than many others. )irst there is 3old3 and 3white+haired,3 which the dreamer himself used. But one could also call the old man"s bearing courageous, insensitive to pain, coming in uninvitedly, powerful, fatherly, insistant. !uch else could be said to characteri>e his bearing. The *ungian analyst who published this dream also offers no grounds 'e#cept the *ungian theory( for selecting the 3higher power3 characteri>ation of the old man, and for ignoring 3selfless3 and 3masculine3 which Boss chooses. Both interpretations equally impose upon the dream and the dreamer"s e#perience. )or neither method is the interpretation integral to a quest for something new, directly e#perienced, which would emerge for the dreamer as a result of an interpretation. 9s they are discussed by Boss, dream interpretations are free floating. They have no phenomenological ground. Equally good alternatives could in the same terms easily be multiplied. Ta e, for e#ample, the patient"s supposed 3passive3 bearing, which Boss derives from the fact that the patient is passive in surgery. But surgery can also be said to be painful, bloody, unusual, e#pensive, dangerous, usually done by men, and constituting an emergency. There is much else one could say. The grafting of the flesh is a magical solution, perhaps, or a bloody one, or a guilt+provo ing one. 9ny of these things might be said.

If we saw an old man actually appear in a hospital and put his own flesh on a patient, the first thing we might remar upon, perhaps, would not be that the patient is passive. 9nd we might not always thin of passivity as disconcerting or negative, given such an instance. Boss"s selections for the dreamer"s bearing, and the old man"s bearing, are as good as any others. =o are some of my alternatives. But if the method of interpretation were phenomenological, then we would have to characteri>e not only the words, but what occurs when something new is lifted out. 5hat e#actly happens to a patient when there is this lifting out$ 5hen does one or another of these interpretations achieve its ground, and just ,-age .A%1 what does such an achievement loo li e$ @ow might we recogni>e it$ These questions are not as ed. Donsider another dream Boss cites; . . . he began to iss and fondle me on the street and say he would love to have intercourse. . . . we started to ta e our clothes off in the streetEit was dar . . . . Then I reali>ed how inappropriate it was to be na ed in the street. I tried desperately to get away from this public place where I was totally na ed. I awo e feeling an#ious.3 'p. .B/(. This is again a dream published by someone else, by 2ollo !ay who is himself interpreting the dream of another analyst"s patientF ?either !ay nor Boss feel the need for the dreamer"s wider present concrete e#perience from which to lift out something to ground their interpretations. Boss says; 3But in all these cases it is not a matter of an#iety ,as !ay had concluded1, but rather of shame . . .3 'p. .G%(. Thus Boss rejects the one bit of post+dream e#perience the dreamer herself is quoted as having e#pressed, namely that she was an#ious after the dream. Boss denies that the man could stand for the patient"s analyst, as !ay had thought. Boss says 3her relationship to the analyst is by no means of such a personally close nature that he is able to secure entrance into the dream+world as . . . an erotically desirous man3 'pp. .GC+.G%(. It isn"t clear how Boss nows what !ay"s colleague"s patient"s relation to her analyst is. ?or do I see how anyone could now without the patient"s e#perience from which to lift out grounding aspects. !ight this patient not find, for e#ample, seconds after !ay"s interpretation, that indeed her need to flee a se#ual pull toward the analyst comes from how inappropriate se#uality feels in an office$ -erhaps it feels to her as if it were in the street. But I do not now that, and I would not maintain it unless such an aspect emerged in the patient"s e#perience in response to such an interpretation attempt. The man in the dream is a schoolmate whom the dreamer described as not at all close to her at present. Boss values closeness with one"s se#ual partner, and so he pic s out her non+closeness as her 3bearing.3 =ince Boss does not li e such non+closeness in se#ual activity, it cannot be a 3possibility,3 and hence it must be the patient"s present bearing. Boss says he values se#uality 3. . . in the warm bed of his own room, together with ,-age .A.1 a . . . very close loved one.3 But Boss"s values and his own good fortune do not really offer a firm basis for interpreting !ay"s colleague"s patient"s issues or dream.

5ho nows, perhaps just now she lac s a close loved one and also rejects impersonal se#uality in her dream, just as Boss does. 8r, a different vulnerability might be involved. -erhaps being more visible as a se#ual being might be an advance which she rejects in the dream. 8r, perhaps she has difficulty having love and se#uality with the same man, or perhaps she is se#ually trouble free and is using se#ual imagery to represent another issue, something she e#posed of herself in conversation or in some other interaction. 8r she might find that she longs to e#hibit herself and show off, but feels guilty about that. 8r she may have a 3bearing3 of being commanded, letting herself be ordered about, which she also rejects. -erhaps she usually rejects all se#ual overtures unless she has herself initiated them, so that the dream might mar an important unreali>ed possibility of responding, as a bearing. 8r, perhaps there is here a new possibility of getting herself out of situations she has not chosen. 9ll these alternatives, including Boss"s, are not really interpretations as much as they are attempts. 8nly some phenomenological response from the phenomenon could ground one or another of them. Boss"s way of using interpretive concepts is not different from the ways used in other systems. 8nly the general concepts are phenomenological< the interpretations are seemingly quite arbitrary. The general direction of loo ing 'how one bears oneself in life, or could bear oneself( is e#cellent and valuable. But no methodological criteria are offered for establishing this or that interpretation as the appropriate one. Boss"s personal preoccupations and values seem to be the guide. Thus, in regard to method, Boss seems to operate li e those he critici>es. 9gain only one of the many alternative interpretations possible in the system is given. 9gain the whole method of interpretation consists of coming up with an interpretation. There is no phenomenological showing of the phenomenon itself. Dertainly we should consider Boss"s e#amples in this paper as mere illustrations of his general method. But if the patient were present, Boss would still seem not to need a phenomenological grounding. Dertainly Boss could try his interpretations, and when they fail to lift out anything new in the patient"s e#peri+ ,-age .A61ence, he could then try other alternatives. But this approach is not part of his method. To see this point, consider Boss"s way of as ing the patient 3questions3; Based on the phenomenological dream+understanding, something li e the following questions would be posed to the reawa ened patient in the ne#t hour of analysis; 3. . . does it not seem obvious to you how little you now about . . .$ how much on the contrary are you . . . in all your actions$ Dan you now perhaps see . . . how you not only do not now . . . as in the dream, but that you do not now . . . while awa e . . .$3 'pp. .G%+.G.( 8nly if the patient were very hardy could she brush off such 3questions3 should they happen to lift out nothing new, and be able to attempt other statements that might lift out relevant and important aspects of her living. But phenomenology in a therapeutic conte#t is difficult to learn, and she is unli ely to now of it. 5ithout loo ing for new aspects to be lifted out, she is li ely to impose some interpretation on her dreams, Boss"s or some other. !y point is the same whether a merely imposed interpretation were her own or Boss"s.

Boss continues; 35ith these questions, the patient would perhaps, for the first time in her life, become aware of the possibility for an entirely different bearing. . .3 'p. .G.(. 9s we just saw, many different new possible bearings could be deduced from the dream, and pushed on her. It is difficult not to conclude that Boss might push the same Eto him desirableEways of being on the patient, dream or no dream. Dertainly one cannot claim that it is the dream itself which unequivocally poses just these values and changed bearings. They far e#ceed the dream. Boss wishes to stay with the dream itself. @e does not even wish to use associations, and almost never mentions them either here or in his boo on dreams ,cf. .1. But it is one thing not to 3re+interpret3 a dream, 3transforming the dream into our symbols3 'p. .B7(, something Boss rightly eschews. It is quite another thing to e#clude from consideration the dreamer"s own associations and further e#periences in response to interpretive attempts. This approach ma es the dreamer"s phenomenological responses 3e#traneous,3 as if they were an alien addition to the dream< yet it treats Boss"s additions and interpolations as if they were just the dream itself. If we are to consider this a phenomenological method, we ,-age .AB1 would have to thin that when Boss interprets a dream, the phenomenon that shows itself in response is what Boss then notices in the dream. Even then, the phenomenon in its particular appropriateness would be some further aspect of the dream which fits or suddenly stands out, lifted up by the interpretation. Boss, however, says nothing li e that. There is no phenomenological method here to ground the changes in mode of living which the therapist selects and reads into the dream. But let us ta e this lac upon ourselves as a further step that is needed. Boss has contributed so much already. 4et us consider his approach further and more deeply, and also, let us move toward a method which would use all concepts phenomenologically, each step grounding itself in some way by lifting out something.

III
Boss says that beyond the dream is only the dreamer"s wa ing life. 5e must therefore put the dream into contact with that wa ing life. There something new is shown. Boss also says that we are dealing not only with how the dreamer now lives life, but also with unreali>ed possibilities. 5e must therefore thin of human life and e#perience not as finite things, factors, entities, finished defined patternings, but as containing unseen possibilities. It follows that Boss as s us to put the dream into contact with the dreamer"s wa ing life, considered not as a collection of facts but as a comple# of implicit possibilities. 9nd this account hints that such possibilities could emerge for the dreamer much as in any hermeneutic; what was implicit suddenly stands out. Boss wants to move from the dream not to an internal realm down and bac from the dream, but forward into the dreamer"s life considered as capable of further possibilities and as capable of having aspects lifted out in it which are as yet unseen. Boss does not want to add something, but to find what is there, not yet seen. @eidegger wrote; 3 "Behind" the phenomenon of phenomenology essentially nothing else stands, however that which is to become phenomenon may be hidden. 9nd just therefore, because the phenomena are at first mostly not given, there is need for phenomenology.3 ,G, p. 601. The statement from @eidegger concerns ontology, but the

method of phenomenology, if applied to dreams, could similarly require lifting out some+ ,-age .AG1 thing which then becomes phenomenon, as a result of the statement 'as logos( lifting it out. @uman e#perience is fundamentally capable of such lifting out. 9t bottom human e#perience is our relating in the world and to others, it is possibility through and through. Therefore it cannot be captured and circumscribed by definitions, even using concepts such as 3bearing3 and 3possibility3 'or any other concepts(. 2ather it can be conceptually contacted only by a lifting out role for concepts. ,61 @ow may we describe e#actly and recogni>ably what it is li e when an interpretive statement regarding a dream lifts out an as yet une#amined aspect or an as yet unlived possibility$ Elsewhere ,61, ,B, p. 6CB1 I have offered recogni>able characteristics of such lifting out. 9mong them is the fact that when something is lifted out by a statement, it is then often capable of leading further, to further aspects which could not be inferred from the statement alone. =econdly, such a directly lifted out aspect is often capable of leading us to change the very statement itself which at first lifted it out. Thirdly, the steps of such lifting out continue< many steps ensue which leave the first statement quite far behind. )ourthly, the progression is non+logical. It is not illogicalE in fact one can fill logical units in, so that in retrospect it can be made to seem as if the steps came by logic. But the original series of statements do not bear logical relations, one to the previous. Each statement will be said to be important in the progression, despite the fact that it may be denied at the ne#t step. That is another recogni>able feature. 9ll these characteristics stem from the fact that the individual has access to something other than the words only. 5hat is said ma es sense not only conceptually but in reference to something directly e#perienced as well, something now lifted out which can tal bac , which can show itself as other and more than the words which lifted it out. 8f course, in practice many statements in relation to a dream lift out nothing new at all. But when at last one statement does, the above described sequence of steps ensues. By the time a number of such steps have been ta en, the 3rightness3 of the interpretation is beyond question. This rightness is not dependent upon either the therapist"s judgment or the patient"s< it rests upon what is lifted out. But as far as it goes, it is beyond question. E#perts could appear and unanimously question the interpretation< nevertheless, the patient has what the interpreta+ ,-age .A01tion pointed to, and the further steps that ensued. These are now not just ideas, but e#perience. They are not just descriptions, but are themselves livings, 3bearings3 which have already changed the way in which the patient lives in the situations dreamt about. If the e#perts have other interpretations, perhaps these too can lift out something, but it would be something else, and additional. This relation of lifting out can be described in @eidegger"s terms; Befindlich eit 'the sense of how one is situated(, Herstehen 'understanding(, and 2ede 'speech(. These notions are implicit in each other such that the hermeneutical tal lays out that understanding which was already implicit in Befindlich eit. The continuity is that which holds between something implicit and its e#plication, and it is retrospective in time; one feels that what is now said e#plicitly was already there in how one felt one"s being+in a situation, although one had not yet reflected upon it.

In this part of my paper I do not insist that what I am saying e#plicates what Boss really means, or what @eidegger really meant in the statements I cited. But I do believe that if we ta e what they have said along the lines of a phenomenological method 'or way of using concepts( and apply it to dreams, we lift out some e#perience of our living, and in a way which permits new aspects and possibilities to emerge from this living. &ream interpretations could be grounded by this approach. 5hen dreaming and wa ing e#periences come together in this way and an interpretation is successful with a dream, there is a distinct and impactful emergence. 8utwardly, one can see the person"s face come alive. There may be a large breath. 9s e#perienced by oneself with a dream of one"s own, there is a flood, an opening and unfolding, an emergence. This distinct e#perience differs mar edly from the merely cognitive sense that some interpretation 3could fit,3 or 3is interesting,3 or gives one some glimmer of sense, or intrigues one. The difference is the emergence of 'or lifting out of( what is then a concrete aspect of one"s living which cannot be made to disappear again 'though it will lead to various further differentiations(. =uch an emergence may occur right after awa ening. 8r it may occur as one tells one"s associations to the dream. 8r it may occur later on, in answer to the many questions which can be as ed of the dreamer in regard to the dream. 8nce it occurs, one nows beyond any question what the dream is about, or at least ,-age .A71 one nows one aspect of life that it is about. =ometimes one such emergence is not sufficient and still leaves much of the dream pu>>ling. 9nother is required. =ometimes such an emergence leaves one in no doubt at all concerning what the dream is about, but one has not learned anything new. The dream seems to be a metaphor for what one new already. )urther questions may lead to a further emergence which does let something new leap out. If the lifting out is made the basic criterion, then the more different ways in which one can illuminate a dream, the more the li elihood of an emergence. 5hile Boss"s concepts of 3bearing3 and 3possibility3 are e#cellent, and directly connect the dream with wa ing life, *ungian and )reudian concepts too can be used in the same way. Every aspect of the dream can be ta en up with the question; 35hat in your life is li e that$3 The feelings in the dream can be pursued; 35hat in your life feels li e that$3 The plot structure can be phrased in various ways, not once but several times; 3first you let yourself in for it, then it doesn"t feel appropriate and you run away. 5hat in your life is li e that$3 9nd then, perhaps, 3Iou e#pose yourself in public, then it feels wrong. 5hat in your life is li e that$3 the figures can be ta en e#ternally; 3This man, what was he li e$ . . . 5ho is li e that$3 They can be ta en as part of the dreamer; 3Is there a way in which you are, perhaps not with much awareness, that is li e that$3'In this last question I have translated *ung"s notion of part+souls within into aspects of our living. If used phenomenologically, it comes to the same thing because what is lifted out will determine what we ma e of it, not the initial statement and its logical implications.( The place also can be e#amined; 35hat was that spot on the street li e, have you ever been there$3 8ne can even as her; 3=tand up and pretend for a moment that you are this man. 5hat does he feel and act li e$3 5ith any of these questions, or none, something may emerge for the dreamer, more than just a thought or an interpretation, but a directly e#perienced aspect of living which can ground interpretation.

I am not here tal ing about a feeling of conviction, or any other affective accompaniment of some interpretation. I am tal ing about the aspects of living which may emerge. 8nly the latter ground an interpretation phenomenologically. Thus a phenomenological method cannot interpret a dream in one ,-age .A/1 step. There would be no opportunity for the phenomenon to tal bac , to show itself as not simply what an interpretive statement says or posits. The phenomenon is not just flatly in the dream, else no interpretation would be needed. 9t first it does not show itself. Then it does. The words disclose it, but it must then spea in its own way, not just as the words. Boss, too, says that the new aspects are not in the dream; he says they are in the wa ing person"s e#perience. The awa ened dreamer fills these new aspects in. 3. . . the givens . . . are laid before him as a wa ing person.3 Boss spea s of 3the clearer perceptivity of his wa ing state . . .3 'p. .0C(. The words 3clearer perceptivity3 imply that something new is lifted out, and in life, not in the dream. In my view, what is lifted out phenomenologically was already there implicitly for such lifting out. It cannot be just a new addition or imposition. The continuity between 3was there implicitly,3 and a now 3shows itself3 is not an inference, not an addition by inference. It is emergence out of hiddenness. 5hereas at first it seemed that Boss uses only the dream and his own values and interpretations, if we go more deeply we find him saying that in the dreamer"s life there must be an emergence, and this, as I propose, is the real grounding for the dream interpretation. @ow does this grounding differ from an unconscious$ Is there not now a hidden basement from which 3repressed3 'Boss says 3avoided3( material emerges$ Boss writes; 3That which gives, which sends the givens of my dream+worlds . . . is the event of Being as such, which enjoys a predisposing sway vis+J+vis all individual beings3 'p. .0.(. The dream givens 3. . . are laid before him . . . as something with which he must come to terms3 'p. .0%(. 3. . . it is not I who produce something out of myself and give it forth when I dream, but rather . . . something is given and sent to me3 'p. .0.(. Is this not again an archetype+li e being, against the bac drop of which we are shown how we are lac ing$ Boss does seem here to laud e#actly the ind of bearing he rejected in the *ungian dream e#ample; allowing oneself to be presented to, not from 3I,3 but from something that stands 3vis+J+vis all individual beings.3 5e may thin that the only difference, again, is the choice of concepts; not intra+ psychic agencies, but 3a giving "Es" . . . out of ,-age .AA1 whose hiddeness everything which presences comes . . .3 'p. .0.(. Boss says this 3Es3 is li e the 3powers of nature, which stand above and beyond man, ,and1 give the rain3 'p. .0.(. 5e thus thin this being as the source of presencing anything, and differ conceptually from *ung. But what difference is there in how we bear ourselves in regard to this being 3which sends . . .$3 The difference lies, I believe, in the directly accessible, e#perienced relation of lifting out. The unconscious is only 3un+,3 only inferred. =o long as we remain without the lifting out, remain only with the dream and an interpretation, we cannot e#plain the difference between the unconscious of the other theories and 3Being as such3 in this one. The difference in the result is only a difference between imposed value choices.

5hat is the difference between the *ungian interpretation which views the old man in the dream as standing for a higher power sent by the unconscious to lead the patient toward more receptivity and away from his over+controlling ego, and Boss"s interpretation of the old man as the presencing of a possible bearing sent by Being as such, sent to lead the patient toward a more masculine and less passive bearing$ There is a difference in value choice, but no difference in method. There is here no practical difference between how the unconscious sends its signals, and how Being as such does it. Both of them get their message through by means of the therapist"s insights. I propose instead that there is a real difference between mere inference 'or merely lighting upon one interpretation and value choice or another( and . . . emerging into unhiddenness. 5hat corresponds here to that phrase is not only the dream itself, but also the aspects of living which emerge, which were already implicit and are now lifted out. This ind of emerging, always very stri ing in the case of dreams, can ma e possible a type of phenomenological method of dream+interpretation, often moving through many steps. Each step is grounded by something newly emergent. In such a method there is no question of staying on the surface by rejecting an unconscious and by claiming that our interpretation adds nothing. Instead, the distinctive way in which what+is+not+at+first+surface functions, is that it shows itself 'rather than remaining inferred or verbal only( as aspects of life e#perience at every step. 5hen it does, it is always more and different than the very statement which helped to lift it out. ,-age 6CC1

!E"E!ENCES
,%1 Boss, !. 3&reaming and the &reamed in the &aseinsanalytical 5ay of =eeing,3 tr. by Tom Doo . ,.1 Boss, !. The Analysis of Dreams. Tr. by 9. *. -omerans, ?ew Ior ; -hilosophical 4ibrary, %AG/. ,61 Gendlin, E.T. Experiencing and the Creation of Meaning . ?ew Ior ; The )ree -ress, %A0.. ,B1 Gendlin, E. T. 3E#periential -henomenology.3 Dhapter in ?atanson, !., Ed. henomenology and the !ocial !ciences . Evanston; ?orthwestern Kniversity -ress, %A76. ,G1@eidegger, !. !ein and "eit. TLbingen; !a# ?iemeyer Herlag, %A0C. !r. Gendlin is in the &epartment of Behavioral =ciences at The Kniversity of Dhicago. @e combines interests in psychology and in philosophy in his teaching, research, and writing. @is principal wor is E#perience and the Dreation of !eaning. @e is also author of 9 Theory of -ersonality Dhange. @e has practiced psychotherapy for twenty+ five years. @e has been especially concerned with the relation between concepts and directly sensed e#perience.

?ote to 2eaders; Ho# Do I !efer To T$is Do%u ent& 9n e#ample reference is at the top of this page. -lease include the Internet address in the reference, even if you cite the document in a printed article, so that others can find the Gendlin 8nline 4ibrary. Can I Lin' Dire%t() To T$is Do%u ent& Ies. 5e encourage you to lin directly to it from your own online documents. 5e have built 3hoo s3 into this web page to ma e it very easy to connect to individual pages and headings in the te#t. )or e#amples, see; @ow to 4in to The Gendlin 8nline 4ibrary. Bio*ra+$i% Note: Eugene T. Gendlin is a seminal 9merican philosopher and psychologist. @e received his -h.&. in philosophy from the Kniversity of Dhicago and taught there from %A06 to %AAG. @is philosophical wor is concerned especially with the relationship between logic and implicit intricacy. -hilosophy boo s include Experiencing and the Creation of Meaning# $anguage %eyond ost&Modernism' !aying and Thin(ing in )endlin's hilosophy edited by &avid !ichael 4evin, 'fourteen commentaries and GendlinMs replies(, and A rocess Model. There is a world wide networ of applications and practices 'http;NNwww.focusing.org( stemming from this philosophy. Gendlin has been honored three times by the 9merican -sychological 9ssociation for his development of E#periential -sychotherapy. @e was a founder and editor for many years of the 9ssociationMs Dlinical &ivision *ournal, sychotherapy' Theory# *esearch and ractice. @is boo +ocusing has sold over half a million copies and has appeared in seventeen languages. @is psychology+related boo s are $et ,our %ody Interpret ,our Dreams and +ocusing&-riented sychotherapy. If )ou see an) fau(ts in t$is do%u ent please send us an email. Add a %o ent to t$e Gend(in On(ine B(o* for t$is arti%(e. See t$e referen%e for t$is do%u ent in t$e Gend(in +ri ar) ,i,(io*ra+$) . More on P$i(oso+$) of t$e I +(i%it fro t$e "o%usin* Institute #e,site. More on "o%usin*-Oriented Ps)%$ot$era+) fro t$e "o%usin* Institute #e,site.

Gendlin, E.T. '%A77(. -henomenological concept versus phenomenological method; 9 critique of !edard Boss on dreams. !oundings# ./, ./G+6CC. )rom http;NNwww.focusing.orgNgendlinNdocsNgolO.CBG.html

PHENOMENOLOGICAL CONCEPT VS. PHENOMENOLOGICAL METHOD: A Critique of Medard Boss on Drea s

EKGE?E T. GE?&4I?, !oundings' An Interdisciplinary 0ournal, Hol. 0C, ?o. 6, 9pproaches To &reaming; 9n Encunter 5ith !edard Boss ')all %A77(, pp. ./G+6CC -ublished by; -enn =tate Kniversity -ress