The interpretation is concerned with dreams: the word “dream” is not a word that closes, but a word that opens. It does not close in upon a marginal phenomenon of our psychological life, upon the fantasies of our nights, the oneiric. It opens out onto all psychical productions, those of insanity, and those of culture, insofar as they are the analogues of dreams, whatever may be the degree and principle of that relationship. Along with dreams is posited what I call the ‘semantics of desire’, a semantics that centers around a somewhat nuclear theme: as a man of desires I go forth in disguise—larvatus prodeo. By the same token language itself is from the outset and for the most part distorted: it means something other than what it says, it has a double meaning, it is equivocal. The dream and its analogues are thus set within a region of language that presents itself as the locus of complex significations where another meaning is both given and hidden in an immediate meaning.

Paul Ricoeur, Freud & Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation

  1. starlitewalker reblogged this from heteroglossia
  2. tiredshoes reblogged this from heteroglossia
  3. daysofchad reblogged this from heteroglossia
  4. heteroglossia posted this