You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
We have seen two examples of symmetrical frenzy, one of bi-logical frenzy, and two of bi-modal frenzy. In symmetrical frenzy we see the ‘invasion’ of the indivisible mode which results in a diminution of consciousness which leads to confusion and eventually to loss of consciousness. No consciousness can exist in the absence of the heterogenic mode. In bi-logical frenzy we see various simultaneous appearances of the sexual relations between the parents. For the indivisible mode they are the same thing. For the thinking (heterogenic) mode they are different things, and are not the parents.
Finally, in the two cases of bi-modal frenzy we can observe a striking incompatibility between the perceptual aspects of the dream, clearly submitted to classical logic, and the multiple meanings of each of the dream images and actions. We have studied the detail of these meanings with the help of the technique of free association. If these two sets of knowledge furnished by the dream are confronted, we become aware of the existence of a Simassi bi-logical structure and hence of the fundamental antinomy between the indivisible and the heterogenic modes of being. And this amounts to saying that the indivisible mode permeates dream.
Dreams such as this are a common occurrence in every person. The important consequence we can draw from this fact is that the indivisible mode is present everywhere in our dream life; it permeates it, and we are not aware of it. We grasp different objects, exept when the dream becomes confused. In the first case we discover the indivisible by means of the interpretative work, in the second by the con-fusion of images. Both cases are witnesses of the indivisible in dreams. After having become aware of this, we soon