I take imagination very seriously. Many people seem to believe that the
playful products of imagination and interior imaginal experiences are
trivial and inconsequential - simply a waste of time and energy in idle
fantasy. I have come to believe that what I can imagine in good
conscience, (keeping everything I know in mind, and not editing out
anything, no matter how difficult or problematic it might be), and what
I can't imagine in good conscience, is the single most reliable test and
indicator of greater truth available to me. Unfashionable though this
attitude may be, I take comfort in the fact that no less a character
than Albert Einstein is reported to have said on multiple occasions,
"To know is nothing - to imagine is everything!"
For this reason, when America On-Line (AOL) first approached me,
early in 1996, offering to hire me to serve as the "host" of
the first regularly scheduled, real time, interactive program on their
internet service devoted to exploring the deeper meanings of individual
dreams, I was both flattered and dismayed. I was flattered because my
name and work had apparently come up multiple times in their search for
a competent professional host for such a "show", and
distressed because when I imagined what the process of facilitating a
daily dream work session on the internet would be like, it seemed to me
that it would almost certainly be very difficult and problematic.
It seemed to me when I thought about it that exploring the deeper
meanings of dreams through linked computers did not offer much hope of
creating and sustaining any real sense of mutual support and community -
something that has always been a very important aspect of my work and
ministry. The more I thought about it, the more it did not even seem to
me that working linked by computers in this way would be very likely to
engender much deeper insight into the meanings of dreams either. I
imagined that the loss of the our ability to see and respond to each
other's facial expressions, to notice cues from bodily presence and tone
of voice, as well as the loss of the ability to "scan" and
maintain some empathetic awareness of others in the group when they were
not actually "speaking" would all be likely to lead to more
fumbling, confusion, inappropriate remarks, and hurt feelings - in
short, to bad dream work, no matter how insightful the occasional typed
comment might be.
Because it was so easy for me to imagine all the things about working
in cyberspace that would militate against good dream work, it even
seemed to me that promoting such a show, and possibly having it fail in
such an obvious and public way, might even do some harm to the
development of the worldwide dream work movement as a whole. Since it
was the first time anything like this had been tried, if it turned out
to be really bad, the irredeemably public nature of these easily
imagined failures would provide something that might look like
"evidence" to support the fear-driven opinions of all those
people who still believe that it's "dangerous" and
"irresponsible" for "lay people" to explore the
deeper meanings of their dreams in anything but a carefully controlled
clinical setting.
The irony of the situation did not escape me - backing away from the
offer would, of course, send exactly the same message. If I said
"no" - (particularly if I explained my reasons, and I would
certainly have to explain them to somebody, if only my friends and
family) - it would suggest that I believed that working with dreams
"blind" on the internet was just too difficult and complicated
to undertake responsibly and productively. At the same time, AOL was
offering a modest but attractive stipend for undertaking this work. The
target audience AOL had selected for this program was well-heeled AOL
subscribers, (particularly women), living on the East coast of the
United States with a free hour to spend in front of their computers from
9:00 to 10:00 a.m. every week-day morning. That meant that the actual
"hosting" of the program would only take up a bit more than an
hour a day, starting a little before 6:00 a.m., for me out in
California, and for that reason wouldn't even interfere with the rest of
my life that much, (except, perhaps. my dream life, since I am not by
nature an early riser...) It was also very clear that this was "an
idea whose time had come", and someone would certainly try to do
it, sooner rather than later, even if I refused - and, of course, all
the same problems would still be there...
AOL wanted an answer immediately, but I put them off for a week or
so, saying I had to think about it an see if I could juggle my schedule
to accommodate this new commitment. I chewed on my dilemma, and shared
my ambivalence about AOL's offer with the students in my graduate dream
work seminar at the Institute for Transpersonal Psychology, In Palo
Alto, California, among others.
A member of that class, Barbara Viglizzo, a very bright computer
maven as well as a gifted transpersonal psychologist, firmly and
playfully took me to task. She pointed out that I was always carrying on
about how important it was not to take other peoples' word about
important ideas and events without having experienced them first-hand
oneself, if possible. She said that to dismiss the dynamic possibilities
of interactive computer dream work solely on the basis of my gloomy
speculations, no matter how much stock I put in my ability to imagine
and anticipate accurately, was a violation of one of my own first
principles. I had to admit that she was right. She generously went on to
suggest that she would be willing to set up a "field test" on
the internet for doing the "if it were my dream..."
projective, group participatory style of dream work that I practice and
promote.
A few days later, I "met" on-line for the first time with a
group of dream work enthusiasts with basic computer skills whom Barbara
had recruited, and we went to work. This initial experience working
interactively in real time on the net with multiple interlocutors from
all over the country simultaneously was a stunning eye-opener for me. It
became clear immediately that it was not so much that my initial fears
were unfounded, but rather that I had been focusing exclusively on the
negative possibilities, and had failed to imagine any of the
incomparable benefits that derive from working with dreams on-line
through multiple computers connected in a network, particularly when
those dreamers self-selected and volunteered to participate in the
experience.
One of the most immediate and obvious advantages of
computer-connected group dream work proved to be the potential for total
anonymity afforded to all the participants. In a multiple
computer-linked communication, if you don't tell people who you are
"IRL", (in real life), then they simply have no way of
knowing. This anonymity "levels the playing field", and tends
to eliminate, or at very least radically minimize age, race, and gender
bias. (Alas, since spelling and language-use are among the primary
markers of class background and identity, the pervasive problem of class
bias is, if anything, increased working on-line.) As a community
organizer who has devoted a great deal of my life to these depressingly
intractable issues, I know that overcoming, or even reducing unconscious
race, sex, age, and physical image bias and prejudice is no small trick!
The fact that the anonymity of the shared computer screen seemed to
create an environment for communication where all participants were able
to receive one another's comments and give them equal weight on their
own merit, without regard for who offered them was a tremendous
revelation.
On-line anonymity also provides an increased sense of comfort and
emotional security for many individuals, particularly introverts, who
are able to feel quite safe, ensconced alone in their safe and private
spaces, in front of their personal computer screens, free of any concern
they might have about the prejudices and bad impressions they might
evoke with their physical presences, A corollary of this built-in
"safety factor" is the increased candor with which people feel
free to comment and self-reveal. There is clearly something about being
"faceless" and physically removed from the possibility of
direct contact that allows people to type things that they would not
have the nerve to say face-to-face. This "insulation" has both
positive and negative consequences, of course. It also
"empowers" people to be far more rude and confrontive than
they would allow themselves to be in any face-to-face contact situation.
The quality of the discussion, and the level and depth of the
insights that were generated in those first "experimental"
sessions set up by Barbara changed my mind completely about the basic
utility, worth, and aesthetic possibilities offered by cyber-group dream
work. We explored several dreams in our initial "meetings",
and exchanged voluminous e-mail afterwards. commenting on our various
experiences and the "aha's" of greater insight and
understanding that were engendered in the process. It was clearly a
great success, particularly with regard to all those very points that I
had been worrying about the most. We did create a real and viable
temporary community while we worked, (one which initiated and nurtured
individual relationships that extended beyond the actual time spent
exploring dreams.) We did get to many of the deeper and more significant
layers of meaning in the dreams we worked on, in much the same way we
would have if we had all been working face-to-face, and in some ways, it
seemed to me, even better.
Initially, it had appeared to me that the main advantage of
computer-connected dream exploration was essentially economic. Working
in this way, mutually congenial people, widely separated from one
another geographically, could gather in a kind of private
"bubble" and communicate with one another on a much more
frequent and regular basis, in a very candid and intimate fashion, and
at much less cost, than if they had to spend the time and money to
travel and meet together face-to-face. The more we worked, however, the
clearer it became that the advantages of working in this way were not
merely economic - the dream work itself was deepened and enhanced by
many of the seeming "limitations" of the computer screen
itself.
As a result of this unambiguously positive field test, I agreed to
host "The Dream Show" for AOL, and we began a daily process of
sharing and exploring dreams on-line, in real-time, interactive groups.
We did this work, week in and week out, for more than two years, (right
up to the time when AOL shifted from "taxi-meter" pricing to a
policy of one flat-rate for unlimited use.)
Early in the process, John Herbert, and Mickey Bright Griffin
volunteered to join me as "associate hosts", and came to help
me out "on stage" almost every morning. John and Mickey are
both extremely sensitive and skilled dream workers who enriched and
deepened our group exploration process immensely. John was already quite
experienced with cyber-dream-work through his work facilitating the
dream work bulletin boards on "Senior Net". Mickey had been
doing extensive face-to-face work in prisons with her husband., Ike, as
part of their shared "Kairos" ministry.
The way the show worked, I would wake up and sign on to AOL fifteen
to twenty minutes before the hour in order to run the tests to make sure
that all the elaborate AOL software that supported the show was up and
running properly, and to verify that all the links and the "sign
posts" were visible and functioning, directing any interested
people from the initial AOL sign-on screens to our
"auditorium". Then, at the stroke of the hour, we would open
the show and greet whoever was "in the room" and ask if there
were any dreams people wanted to share, or questions about dreams and
dreaming that they would like to discuss.
We were always prepared with dream narratives and questions of our
own for discussion to "prime the pump" if there was no
immediate response, but we never had to use them. There was always
someone there with a dream, or question about dreams and dreaming, to
get us rolling.
My job as "host" consisted mainly in reading all the
"submissions" that people in the auditorium directed to the
"stage", and then determining which items I would re-post for
the whole audience to share and respond to. That meant that I was
constantly monitoring an unending stream of material coming in from all
the people out in the "rows", punching the keys to drop some,
and to send others to the shared screen. While I was doing this, John
and Mickey would add their own comments, interspersing them with the
material culled from the submissions from the audience, together with my
own comments and contributions. We quickly established a set of cues and
protocols that allowed us to signal when we were finished
"speaking" in order to avoid "stepping on each other's
lines". Among the three of us, we managed to keep up a steady flow
of observations, remarks, and suggestions that kept everyone in the
auditorium interested and involved. It was always a very quick hour for
all of us!
Beyond the technical tasks of checking the software and facilitating
the flow of cyber-comments and participation from the audience, I also
had a primary responsibility to offer my own suggestions about the
multiple possible deeper layers of meaning in the dreams we were
discussing. However, the most important responsibility of the
"host" was, as always, setting and maintaining a tone of
civility, enthusiasm, and welcoming interest. With Mickey's and John's
expert help, we succeeded in setting a consistently welcoming and
supportive tone for the entire time the show was on AOL. As time went
by, we were aided in all our facilitation tasks more and more by a
growing number of "regulars" who started attending the show
practically every day.
Ultimately, I believe that all leadership reduces to the ability to
set and maintain tone. Good leaders set good tone, and crummy leaders
set crummy tone. Whoever sets the tone is the leader, no matter what it
says on the flow-chart. If the sour malcontent in the back of the room
sets a tone of unhappiness and frustration that influences the whole
meeting, then that person is "the leader", no matter who's
sitting up at the front table with the badge and the gavel.
It is difficult enough to set consistently good tone in face-to-face
groups and meetings IRL, and it is even harder to monitor and influence
the tone of collective group cyber-communications. The very things that
make for anonymity and greater freedom of expression also tend to create
a "hot house" atmosphere where little unintentional slips and
slights become exaggerated, and where actual insults and accusations
become grounds for war and divorce. This effect also works in the other
direction - positive interactions also tend to become exaggerated.
I believe this is one of the factors influencing the relatively new
phenomenon of "cyber-infatuation", where people fall in love
with one another on-line, often focussing more of their emotional
cathexis on their invisible cyber-interlocutors than on their friends
and family IRL. I believe this phenomenon of emotional exaggeration in
on-line interactions is also a direct psychological consequence of the
limited perceptual field of the computer screen. Because there is so
little "secondary information" (like facial expression, body
gestures, tone of voice, etc.) to "soften" or "fill
out" the written message, whatever appears on the screen becomes a
veritable magnet for unconscious projection.
In this important way, real-time, interactive computer communication
is actually more like talking on the telephone than writing letters.,
which it resembles more superficially. There is a quality of the
instantaneous speed of the communication, combined with the loss of
expressive "cues" that does not allow for the levels of
subtlety that often come into play in ordinary written correspondence,
where the message can be read and re-read at leisure before responding.
Obviously, very good dream work can be accomplished on the telephone and
over linked computers, but in order to be successful, this universal
phenomenon of unconscious projection must be made more conscious and
explicit.
We human beings are "hard-wired" to project - in other
words, we are inherently predisposed to see those aspects of our own
beings and psyches for which we are not yet able to take conscious
responsibility as the exclusive property of others outside and beyond
ourselves. In this way, the entire world is a "screen" upon
which we "project", naively attributing our own
less-than-conscious thoughts and feelings "outward" onto
others. When this "screen" is also a computer screen, this
inherent tendency to project is intensified significantly .
Imagine that it's Summer. Imagine that you are lying on your back,
replete and relaxed on the warm grass, staring idly up into the
beautiful, cloud-strewn sky. In these relaxed circumstances we all tend
to "see" distinct faces and figures in those passing shapes,
even though we know intellectually that they are simply amorphous blobs
of water vapor. Even knowing this, we still see horses and dragons,
cherubs and laughing faces in the fluffy white cloud-forms. The
particular images that we "see" in this way are unconscious,
symbolic projections of our own interior lives, our aspirations,
worries, thoughts, and feelings. We can recognize fairly easily that we
are "projecting" these images when we are
"cloud-gazing" - what we usually fail to understand and
appreciate is that we also project in a similar fashion all the time,
awake and asleep.
In fact, one important way of understanding the deeper multiple
meanings that inhere in all dreams is to see that our dreams themselves
are all projections of our interior lives while we are asleep. To the
extent that we are all usually convinced that our dreams are
"really happening" while we are dreaming them, our dreams
provide and exquisitely accurate reflection the extent to which we also
project those same emotional/symbolic forms and energies while we are
awake, constantly mistaking our own disowned thoughts and feelings as
descriptions of "objective reality", "out there".
It is this naive, unconscious attribution of negative, archetypal
"shadow" energies from within our own psyches to others in the
outer world that is the root psychological cause of racism, sexism,
classism, ageism, "pretty-ism", and all the other collective
oppressions we visit on one another. We see outside ourselves the very
things that we harbor within and are afraid to fully admit to ourselves.
The repetitive, stereotyped list of accusations that the racist uses to
justify his/her prejudice is, in fact, an ironic, unconscious form of
confession. If those self-same "evil", negative energies and
attributes did not exits within, none of us would not even notice them
outside ourselves, let alone get so worked up about them.
This tendency to see that which we have not owned consciously in
ourselves as the exclusive property of others outside ourselves is not
limited to the projection of "negative shadow" ideas and
stereotypes - it also manifests in so-called "Bright Shadow"
projection, where we also unconsciously project our own as-yet-unmanifested
creative gifts, talents, and native genius out onto others in the world,
behaving as though these "good" characteristics existed only
outside ourselves, as attributes of others whom we respect, admire,
adore, and "hero-worship". It is clearly through this
"bright shadow projection" that the emotional energies that
fuel intense cyber-romances are activated and mobilized.
However, just because it's projection, doesn't mean it isn't also
true - and if it is, in fact, true - then it must also involve a large
element of projection, because we all project where there are
"hooks" to hang it on. In other words, we project our own
unacknowledged intelligence on people who really are smart, all on their
own, before we even met them. It's just that when they enter our filed
of awareness, in addition to the intelligence that they exhibit all on
their own, we also give them the "credit" for whatever
intelligence and mental ability we have not yet acknowledged and taken
conscious responsibility for in ourselves. In this way, we project
beauty on people who really are pretty and attractive. We project
nastiness on people who really are jerks. It's just that in addition to
their own nastiness, we also give them credit for our own unowned and
unconscious "shadow side". Perhaps the greatest contribution
"the Dream Show" was able to make during the years it was
on-line was to make the people who participated more consciously aware
of the extent to which we are all always projecting, particularly when
sharing our ideas and feelings about the possible deeper meanings of
other dreams. Many people who participated in the show also reported
coming to a similar understanding that this is also true of all our
opinions and ideas in waking life, not just the interpretive ideas we
have about what other peoples' dreams mean.
This more conscious acknowledgement of the projective quality of our
interpretive remarks and insights on "The Dream Show" also
added another exciting dimension to the work we did. It allowed
participants to realize that any "aha's" of insight they had
about the meanings of other peoples' dreams were also valid for
themselves. It was, after all, their own imagined version of the
dreamer's dream that they were responding to. In this way, it was
demonstrated over and over again that the benefit of working on a dream
in a group is never limited just to generating insights for the original
dreamer, but is shared to some extent or another by every person in the
group.
There were also many similar contributions to self-awareness and
self-understanding that were made as the three of us regularly monitored
and commented on the thousands of dreams and dream questions posted and
discussed on the Dream Show bulletin boards. We maintained these
bulletin boards in association with the daily interactive part of the
program. Here people posted their dreams and questions, and "after
thoughts", even after the morning show had ended. Others who hadn't
even attended the morning sessions left their comments, responses, and
suggested interpretations. Quite quickly, these bulletin board
interactions became too numerous for even the three of us, working
together sharing the task, to keep close track of. Once again, we came
to rely more and more on the growing number of "regulars" who
also started showing up and working with the bulletin boards, in
addition to their contributions they made to the real-time interactive
part of the show..
Another of the important functions of the bulletin boards was to
provide an initial "orientation" and description of what we
were doing: explaining reasons for and the subtleties of the "if it
were my dream..." techniques we were employing, and the basic
ethical principles we subscribed to, and required others to observe, in
working with each others' dreams on the bulletin boards, as well as the
live, interactive part of the show.. We prominently posted the recently
adopted "Dream Work Ethics Statement" adopted by the
Association for the Study of Dreams (ASD), q.v. We made it clear every
day that this statement was the ethical foundation of our group work
together, as well all our one-to-one e-mails and other interactions..
The promulgation of this general set of ethical guidelines for the
conduct of "lay" dream work by the ASD has significantly
advanced public understanding and acceptance of working with dreams, and
was particularly helpful in providing a firm foundation for the on-line
work we were engaging in at that time.
At was at this exciting point of development that, responding to the
market place and the increasingly intense competition and economic
pressure from competing internet servers, AOL suddenly shifted it
billing policy from "taxi-meter", "pay-per-play" to
a single flat-rate for unlimited use. That shift made it dramatically
clear that the economics and ethics of dream work are inextricably
entwined, and cannot be treated as separate issues.
Prior to the adoption of flat-rate pricing for AOL membership,
"content providers" like "The Dream Show", (and the
plethora of other "chat" programs and specialized
"auditoriums" on AOL), each received a fractional cut of the
metered charge made against the accounts of every single participant,
reflecting the length of time they spent in that particular
"area". When AOL shifted to flat-rate pricing, the bottom
suddenly fell out of "the chat market". Literally over night,
there was no more money in chat. Thousands of people could
"crowd" into a single shared cyber-space
"auditorium" and there was no more money to be made by that
content provider than if no one showed up at all. However,
"chat" was. (and still remains today), the single most
attractive commodity/activity offered on the internet as a whole, as
well as AOL. No one who wants to sell something on-line can afford to
abandon real-time and time-delayed personal interaction that serves as
the primary draw to that particular site.
After the shift to flat-rate pricing, the only way for content
providers to generate income on AOL was to entice AOL members to pay
"extra" for their programs, on a "pay-per-play"
basis, in addition to their monthly AOL "access fee". That
meant that in addition to providing a cyber-venue for interesting
communication and information, these previously successful chat areas
had sell something "extra". The only thing "The Dream
Show" had to sell, besides dream work books and tapes, (which AOL
did not want to get involved in warehousing, and distributing, even
though the marketing mechanism was already firmly in place), was the
dream work itself. The AOL execs responsible for "The Dream
Show" started telling me that John and Mickey and I were going to
have to "change our style", and instead of doing all the work
on the dreams offered for exploration by members of the audience, out in
the open for all present in the public "auditorium" to see and
participate in, we should start telling people that if they wanted to
"finish up" their work and know more about a dream we had
started working, they would have to pay extra in order to get to the
"punch-line", to find out the deeper, more personally valuable
and on-the-case interpretations.
I found this suggestion ethically offensive and unacceptable, and
said so. As a result of this "negotiation", the "Dream
Show" was cut back to three days a week, with a commensurate cut in
pay. After a month or two of the new reduced schedule, the same proposal
was made again, along with the promise that we would go back to five
days a week, and maybe even add some "extra" hours on the
weekends. The AOL execs pointed out that the show had a large, loyal,
and growing following, and that the potential of "adapting
profitably to the new marker conditions" was immense. I again
countered by saying that the best way to take advantage of that pool of
excitement and interest was to sell books and tapes, and maybe even a
separate "training program" for "cyber-dream
workers". I was more than willing to do all that, but I reiterated
that I was not willing to do two-tiered, "bait and switch"
dream work, inviting people to share the intimate details of their
dreams and their waking lives, and then telling them that in order to
really get at the deeper meanings of their dreams, they would have to
pay extra. I also pointed out again that what we were offering and
facilitating was a group process, where everyone was free and invited to
contribute. Much of the value of the work we did came, as it always
does, from the multiple contributions that anonymous group members made,
in addition to the things that John and Mickey and I had to say.
Once again, we failed to come an agreement, and AOL cut us back to
one day a week. While all this was going on, the "attendance"
at the show - particularly participation in the 24-hour available
bulletin boards was rising steadily. It was very frustrating for
everyone concerned, particularly the "regulars" who had by now
made the cyber-dream work an important part of their lives.
Finally, AOL fired me and canceled "The Dream Show" because
it was no longer turning a profit, despite the numbers of people it
drew. At this point, a very gratifying thing happened. Sixteen of the
"regulars" decided that the work we had all been doing for
more than two years was so important that they didn't want it to end.
They continued to hire me directly for a while to complete the
"training program" that "The Dream Show" had become
for them, and then set forth on their own, establishing their own
private chat room devoted to exploring their own and other peoples'
dreams, available 24-hours a day for any of the group members who wish
to use it, along with regularly scheduled meetings, and regular e-mail
exchanges.
This has always been a basic principle for me - I believe a good
teacher/ community organizer should always be working him-or-herself out
of a job. Self-empowerment is the name of the game. This principle is as
applicable and important with regard to the skills and sensitivities
necessary to good, productive, responsible work with dreams through
multiply linked computers as it is in any other venue. I am pleased to
report that the "Sixteen Dream Workers" are still going
strong. They have established an enduring cyber-community that provides
great emotional, social, psychological, and I would even say spiritual
support for its members. Their individual dream work skills, and their
dynamic collective abilities have all developed and matured in dramatic
ways.
As the cost decreases, and the availability of technological
innovations for personal computers expands, linked, real-time,
interactive computer dream work will inevitably begin to look more and
more like face-to-face dream sharing and exploration. At the same time,
the "natural anonymity" of these early days of cyber-dream
work will disappear as it becomes as easy and cheap to project images of
our faces as it is to project our written words. Much will be gained in
this process, and, I fear, much will be lost as well. To use a specific,
real, and to me, very moving example: once faces enter the mix again, no
longer will a bright and clever Hispanic high-school girl from East Los
Angeles be able to offer her thoughts about the deeper meanings of the
dreams of an middle-aged Anglo physicist in Los Alamos, and be taken as
seriously as the comments on that same dream that come from a computer
sciences professor at MIT, a house wife in Maryland, and a lonely
airforce spouse in Greenland. Had the physicist known who was
"speaking", I do not believe he would have allowed himself to
be as touched and moved by the young woman's comments, brilliant and
insightful though they were.
The more cyber-interaction mimics face-to-face physical interaction,
the harder it will be to preserve the blank, equalitarian, value-free
anonymity offered by the old-fashioned computer screen. As it becomes
easier and easier to send visual images along with words, and voices
along with typed copy, computer users will know more and more about one
another "at first sight" when they meet on-line, and all the
old prejudices will be there, slipping back into their old, accustomed
places, unless we do the work necessary to change our patterns of
unconscious projection.
At the same time, increasingly accurate and sophisticated language
translation programs will make direct, meaningful human contact between
individuals of vastly different cultures more and more possible. There
are, of course, great and exciting advantages to these developments, but
they will also inevitably invite the prejudices of age, race, gender,
class, culture, and "persona image" back into cyber-relations
with one another more strongly. Yes, we will be able to project any
image we like through our computers, but it will be "an
image", rather than an anonymous collection of typed communication.
(If I were a gambling man, I would invest in the first company that came
along promising to provide people with multiple "face-bots"
for their on-line visual and vocal cyber-interactions...)
From my point of view, all this means that we must continue to do all
we can to make conscious awareness and appreciation of the psychological
process of unconscious "projection" a central and growing part
of our increasingly global cyber-culture. Building cyber-communities of
individuals who are interested and increasingly skilled at sharing their
dreams, and seeing some of the deeper layers of meanings and
significance that lie "hidden" in them, is perhaps one of the
best and most universally interesting and inviting ways to achieve this
end. As always, history presents us a face that looks very much like
"a race between education and disaster." Working with linked
computers to share dreams across barriers of language and culture, and
in so doing, discovering more and more about the universal human
tendencies to symbolize out most important events of individual and
collective lives in essentially the same ways, offers a practical way of
achieving that most longed-for of goals, "the reconciliation of
each with all".
Jeremy Taylor
