Vanilla Sky: An Exploration of Wish-Fulfillment

In his groundbreaking work The Interpretation of Dreams Sigmund Freud put forward the idea that "Every dream represents the fulfillment of a wish."  For many dreams, this idea seems rather self-evident.  However, it's Freud's assertion that all dreams represent the fulfillment of a wish that many people have a hard time grasping.  They have trouble accepting that even their nightmares are manifestations of their deepest desires.  On the surface the idea appears contradictory and the implications seems appalling, but the mind is far more complicated than they imagine.

The idea is simple enough, if you think about it.  A dream is an experience created by you mind.  Every situation, every event, every detail no matter how small is deliberately orchestrated.  There is nothing accidental.  There is nothing that happens to you in a dream that runs contrary to your will, no matter how much it might appear that way.  You might not be aware or feel a conscious connection to the forces creating and controlling your dreams.  Nevertheless, it is your mind at work behind it all.  It's your mind making it all happen.  Deep down there's some part of you that wants it to happen, that needs it to happen, even if the conscious experience of it is one of overwhelming terror.  

But why would your own mind deliberately put you through a terrifying ordeal like that?  How could a wish-fulfillment fantasy turn into such a twisted and unpleasant experience?  The film Vanilla Sky provides an excellent glimpse of this process at work.  (Spoilers to follow, of course.)

The story of the film follows the emotional journey of David Ames, a young heir to a publishing empire.  He has lived a life of excess and entitlement.  He has money.  He has no trouble picking up women.  Anything he wants, he gets without effort.  Disappointment, disillusionment, and regret are things he's seldom had to deal with in his life.  Then one day it all falls apart.  A girl named Julie that he's had a casual relationship with grows angry over his callous attitude and becomes jealous of a new girl that he's interested in named Sophia.  She drives off a bridge and commits suicide with him in the car.  He wakes up from a coma scarred and disfigured.  Sophia shies away from him.  He begins to see his nice comfortable life slipping away.  All of the things that once came easy to him are now just beyond his reach.  

(At this point in the story, things take a surreal turn.  However, my point would be better served if I followed the events in a chronological rather than narrative order.)  

Faced, for the first time in his life, with the crushing consequences of something he cannot change, David commits suicide.  Before doing so, he signs a contract with a company called Life Extension to have his body placed in cryogenic stasis upon his death.  He purchases a deluxe package from them called "The Lucid Dream."  As the name suggested, this involves placing David's mind in a dream state while his body is frozen and preserved.  This dream is "spliced" into a specifically chosen moment in David's life.  As far as he knows, his life is simply continuing on from that moment.  He has no memory of taking his own life or any other real-world events that happened after the splice.  

Now here is where we get into the issue of dreams.  The point of the Lucid Dream option is the same as the point of all dreams under Freud's theory.  It is sold to David as a limitless experience of fantasy and wish-fulfillment.  Yet, something goes wrong.  The dream turns into a nightmare.  Oh, it all begins well enough.  Sophia no longer pulls away, but instead she accepts him and falls in love with him.  The doctors are able to fix his disfigured face.  His life seems to be getting back on track.  But then things take a turn.  He "wakes up" to find Julie in bed with him, claiming to be Sophia.  Things begin to spin out of control.  Everyone else recognizes Julie as Sophia.  He has paranoid suspicions that he's the victim of some sort of conspiracy.  Sophia and Julie become interchangeable to the point that it finally leads him to a breakdown that drives him to murder Sophia.  In prison a psychologist leads him to remember his contract with Life Extension and the realization that he's in a dream state.

So did the people at Life Extension sell him a faulty product?  Was there a glitch in the Lucid Dream option?  No.  The Lucid Dream delivered exactly what it was supposed to.  David's dream was a wish-fulfillment, just as Freud insisted.  The problem is that there are often wishes in the mind that run counter to one another, causing a traffic jam of impossibility that makes the sub-conscious incapable of projecting a pleasant scenario.  David still had repressed guilt over his involvement in Julie's death.  Part of him wished that he had loved Julie.  Part of him wished that he had been in a deeper relationship with her, that he could have been capable of caring more about her, and that he could have spared her life.  Part of him didn't feel like he deserved this happy life with Sophia and he wished that he could be in a situation that he felt less guilt and regret over.  In the experience of the Lucid Dream his mind expressed these wishes by grafting Julie onto his projection of Sophia.  Naturally, this conflicted with his more conscious wish to have a happy life with Sophia.  This ambivalence is also represented in his worries over whether his re-constructive surgery is real and lasting.

The story of David Ames demonstrates the process of wish-fulfillment by exhibiting it in stark relief.  He begins with a nearly perfect life.  It's a fairly straight-forward fantasy.  But then guilt, regret, and catastrophe disrupt this fantasy as they disrupt all of our fantasies and dreams.  It's not a simple thing, getting what we want.  Only a perfect and unblemished soul could have perfect and unblemished dreams.  For the rest of us, our fears and worries, our doubts and inadequacies shade even our most ambitious desires with touches of beautiful melancholy.  Occasionally, the experience can even take a horrifying turn.  We can only hope that, like David Ames, we can reconcile this turbulence and find peace under these Monet-like skies.     

                                 

Welcome to Earth....Why Are You Here?

Many of the people who have speculated about the existence of extraterrestrials have always just assumed that if there were aliens, they would just naturally be visiting Earth.  The hubris and the subjective sense of self-importance behind this assumption is incredible.  It doesn't even seem to occur to these people that the question of whether there's sentient life somewhere out there in the galaxy and the question of whether that life has visited Earth are two separate matters entirely.  They treat them as if they're one in the same; if there are aliens, they must have visited Earth.  Really!?  How could we be sure they even know we exist?  Why would they even come here in the first place?  If there's life out there on at least one other planet, then you almost have to figure that there's life out there on millions more besides that one.  So out of all those millions, why would they pick Earth? 

"Uh, we were just in the neighborhood, and we figured we stop by for a visit."

Of course, as human beings, we think we're pretty special.  We occupy a central place in our view of the universe, and understandably we have a hard time stepping outside that view.  But if the matter is to be given any serious consideration, then that's what we have to do.  We have to look at it from the aliens point of view.  To them Earth is just another planet out of millions with life on it.  They would have to have a reason to cross the vast expanse of space to come here.  They would have to have an objective reason to think we're special.  I think the people involved in genuine extraterrestrial research projects like S.E.T.I. understand this.  I'm speaking more, of course, of some of the stranger conspiracy theorists out there as well as people in general that you find yourself having these kind of weird conversations with. 

"Ah Earthlings!  We've heard so much about you from the Klagnars.  You walk upright and eat with utensils?  Fascinating!"

I got into a conversation like this with a friend of mine once.  When I pointed that they would need a reason to bother coming here, he speculated that maybe they were interested in our researches in atomic energy and our creation of nuclear weapons.  At first this idea seemed to fit.  The whole "Roswell" siting seemed to coincide perfectly in time and place with the bomb testing at Los Alamos just a few years earlier.  However, in the end, I think the whole thing kind of falls apart.  It seems to me that nuclear technology would be an inevitable step on the road to developing the means of intergalactic travel.  You can't break the light barrier and miss fission entirely.  On the other hand, maybe they already know all about nuclear weapons, and they know how dangerous they are, and they're here to make sure we're not a threat or we don't annihilate ourselves.  Again, I seriously doubt this.  As awesomely powerful as our weapons seem, they're like firecrackers on a galactic scale.  As far as them being concerned with our safety...a nice idea, but I'm sure the universe is far too big a place and much too populated for these aliens to concern themselves over the beings of a tiny blue planet destroying themselves.

"You split the atom!?  Wow!!  Our ships are powered with noodle technology."

So am I making a definitive statement that the aliens have not been here?  Of course not.  Who knows?  Who even knows if there are any aliens out there?  I'm just saying that they wouldn't come here without a reason.  We've outgrown the literal notion that the universe revolves around us, but we still sometimes fall back into that frame of mind.  Maybe in all the universe we're the only other planet that the aliens have found with life on it.  Maybe it's just the two of us.  Unlikely.  Maybe they just planted life here, like some cosmic zoo, and they stop by to watch us swing on the rope and throw feces at each other.  Uhhhh.  Maybe they got lost and decided to stop and ask for directions.  Maybe we're like the hillbilly gas station of the galaxy.  Yeah, that sounds about right.      

     

The Garden of Eden

Usually, when I hear someone talk about the Garden of Eden story, they mistakenly refer to the forbidden tree that Adam and Eve ate from as "The Tree of Knowledge."  Actually, the full name is "The Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil."  The distinction here is a crucial one.  The story isn't so much an indictment of knowledge, as it is a tale of how mankind acquired a conscience and all the burdens, responsibilities and curses that went with it.

The distinguishing characteristic of human beings is not only our intelligence, but also our conscience.  All the other creatures on this planet are driven by instincts.  Instincts which they can neither control or deny.  They form an essential part of their nature and define their every action.  They even seem to be born with the knowledge necessary to follow these instincts.  A bird seems to inexplicably know how to build a nest.  The information seems to be innate and pre-installed.  I don't pretend to know all the scientific intricacies of how this works, but it's the fact that it does work that I'm interested in here.  Human beings don't seem to possess this kind of innate knowledge.  It's true that we have certain predispositions and biological forces that drive us, and these are often referred to as "instincts."  But these don't appear to be the same kind of instincts that make it possible for a bird to just know how to build a nest or a beaver how to build a dam.  Even the most basic and necessary human behavior requires learning.

So it would seem at first glance that the birds have an advantage over us.  They know how to build their nests without being taught.  However, this innate knowledge come with a price.  Birds can only build their nests according to this pre-installed design.  Over thousands and thousands of years, birds have built their nests in exactly the same way.  They can not rethink or relearn the process, because there was no thinking or learning involved in the first place.  They are incapable of true creativity.  But since human beings have to learn how to do everything from scratch, since we have to consciously process new information, we are capable of coming up with different ways of doing things.  We are free to act in a way that the birds are not.  Conscience is the responsibility we bear for this freedom.

The matter of good & evil only becomes relevant when dealing with a being who is free to choose their behaviors and course of action.  Innate instincts serve in the place of conscience for animals and other creatures.  There's no consideration of good & evil when it comes to the nest-building of birds.  They're simply following a natural design.  Human actions come with no such guarantee.  We are free to do anything that we're physically capable of.  We're free to create something new.  But since we are capable of making these choices, the possibility of making the wrong choices comes into the picture.  By being released from the restraints of instinct our eyes were opened to infinite possibilities of creativity.  Conscience is our awareness that we might make mistakes.  It's an expression of our uncertainty when faced with the responsibility of making choices.  It's the sense of the weight of our own potential.  The Garden of Eden story is a brilliant exploration of this problem.  It captures the very essence of the human dilemma.

The Serpent in the story told Eve that they would become like gods if they ate the fruit.  In a certain sense he was telling the truth.  He was being disingenuous, to be sure, but it wasn't altogether a lie.  The acquisition of a conscience came with the power to create, and for the first time the artificial was introduced into the natural world.  Adam & Eve clothing themselves with fig leaves was an act of guilt and shame, but it also represents the first act of genuine human creativity.  With this detail, the story demonstrates how these things go hand in hand, as two sides of the same coin.  All the accomplishments of human civilization owe themselves to the fact that we were able to rise above natural instincts.  Unfortunately, all the atrocities of human history owe themselves to this fact as well.  Jean Paul Sartre said that we experience anguish over the recognition of our freedom.  He said we are doomed to be free.  We are free to create and free to destroy.  The choices are limitless.  Our conscience reminds us that they are our choices, and that in the end we're going to have to live and die with the consequences.    
           

Trying to Understand Relativity (part 1)

I've always been intrigued by the theory of relativity, but I really have a hard time wrapping my head around the whole concept.  I'd like to think I'm smart enough to understand it, but after ten minutes of thinking about it, I start to feel like that famous railroad worker that had a tamping rod driven through his skull.  I understand how it all works to some degree, but I don't understand why.  I know that the discovery that light travels at a constant rate irregardless of the velocity of the source emitting or reflecting the light contributed to Einstein's development of the theory in some way.  I know all about the time dilation and the Twin Paradox and everything.  I just can't quite grasp the way it all works.  I've tried to devise a kind of thought experiment to help me understand, but I think I'm clearly missing something.

Figure 1.

Alright, so you have these two houses.  They are both separated by a distance of one light year (figure 1).  It's 2010 at both houses, but because of the time it takes for the light to reach each neighbor, when they look out at each other they're both seeing the state that each existed in back in 2009.  

Figure 2

Okay, so now let's say that in 2010 the guy in house B decides to visit the guy in house A.  He gets into his spaceship and travels at as near the speed of light as it's possible to get (figure 2).  Since the distance is one light year, it will take him just over a year to make the trip.  So he'll arrive at house A in 2011.  Okay, now let's say that the guy in house A has been standing at his window watching all this.  Again, since it takes a year for the light to travel, the guy in house A doesn't see his neighbor in house B pull his spaceship out of his garage until 2011.  Then, a mere few minutes later, he gets a knock at his door.  His neighbor from house B has just arrived on his doorstep.

So doesn't it seem like the trip would seem nearly instantaneous to the guy in house A?  Yet, everything I've ever heard about relativity seems to suggest the opposite.  They say that if the guy in house A could see a clock aboard his neighbor's spaceship it would seem to slow down.  If the guy from house B could see a clock in the living room of house A from aboard his ship, it would seem to race by.  But it seems almost like it would be the other way around.  House A would see the clock zip along, spinning through a year of days in a matter of seconds.  Meanwhile, from the ship, the clock in house A would seem to slow down to compensate for the extra year.  (Remember, that the guy in house B sees house A as it was in 2009 when he climbs aboard his ship.)

I don't know.  The problem's obviously not with relativity, but rather with my understanding of it.  There's either something fundamentally flawed or missing in my experiment, or my idea of relativity itself is completely backward.  I don't get it.

I need some aspirin.

         

Apocalypse Island

A few months ago I caught this special on The History Channel, Apocalypse Island.  It was about this Archeologist who claimed to have found a Mayan Monument on an island several miles off the coast of Chile.  It was thousands of miles from where any known Mayan civilization had ever existed.  The documentary centered around his efforts to return to the Island with a colleague who was supposed to verify his findings.  This was inter-cut with interesting details about Mayan history, and of course, the usual business about 2012 doomsday prophesies. 

It started out fairly compelling.  Hand-held video footage documented the archeologists' efforts to charter a boat and stock up on supplies.  There was much made of the fact that the island was very hard to get to and that they only had a brief window of opportunity to view the monument before the monsoon season hit.  The video documented their trip on the boat, their arrival on the island, and the fact that they had to take a smaller boat to land on shore because there was no open coast where the main craft could land.

This is where things started to fall apart.  They had hammered the point over and over and over again that this was a dangerous undertaking, that the location was extremely remote and inaccessible, and that the two men would be making the trek completely alone.  Yet, the moment they landed on the island, there were constant panoramic shots and aerial shots of the two men hiking across the island.  This was supposed to be real documentary footage, not a re-enactment.  But who was filming this footage?  It was all very clear and cinematic.  There were distant wide shots of the two tiny figures navigating through the mountains.  There had to be an entire crew working on this; a crew with a helicopter and trucks filled with production equipment.  As I noticed this problem, the implications of this elaborate footage completely undercut the image of these two men braving treacherous obstacles to reach a mysterious and remote location.  It turned the whole thing into a joke.

I actually started to feel like an idiot that I had wasted any of my time watching this.  It was the most obviously staged thing I'd ever seen on television, and that's really saying something.  When they finally reached the so-called "monument", it didn't look like anything more than a natural out-cropping of rock to me.  Oh, there were a lot of expressions of amazement on the part of the archeologists.  They were clearly impressed and convinced that they were looking at a piece of ancient Mayan construction.  I guess we were just supposed assume that they knew what they were talking about.  It might look like rocks to us, but they were experts.  Whatever.  Then came the final piece of insultingly obvious staging.  One of the men had to make the "dangerous" climb to the top of the monument, risking his life to confirm its authenticity.  One problem though.  The man's assent up the face of the monument was shot from the top of the monument looking down.  I guess a camera man risking his life to climb that thing doesn't count.

I can't believe the History Channel would put this sort this sort of thing on the air.  I know they're not always a paragon of integrity, but this was ridiculous.  The whole thing was aimed at people who buy into the whole 2012 doomsday prophesy.  I suppose they figure those people will believe anything.  They might be right.