If dreams are suppose to be symbolic expressions of the unconscious, what are the implications for the psyche if one is having a repeated nightmare?

REM (Rapid Eye Movement) sleep is the reoccuring sleep state in which dreaming occurs and, while it only accounts for about 20% of sleep in adults, scientists believe that REM sleep is critical for normal emotional and physical functioning and for survival itself. If that's the case, this almost seems to imply that the expression of the psyche is necessary for us to functional normally. The real question, then, is whether or not if you DON'T dream often enough means that you aren't emotionally and/or physically well?!?

Sadly, I'm one who rarely dreams, so whenever I do, I always like to pay attention to the details of my dreams. Lately, I've been having this reoccuring nightmare and strangely, I always wake up at the exact moment. Doing a quick search on the meaning of certain symbols on random dream interpretation sites, I have found the following information:

Train: To dream that you are on a train, is symbolic of your life's journey and suggests that you are on the right track in life and headed for the right direction. Alternatively, you have a tendency to worry needlessly over a situation that will prove to work out in the end.

Teddy Bear: To see or receive a teddy bear in your dream, suggests a regression to an earlier state. You may be reminiscing about early childhood memories. Alternatively, a teddy bear signifies an immature relationship.

Monster: To dream that you kill a monster, signifies that you will successfully deal with your rivals and advance to a higher and better position.

Of course, reading this, I wonder how much of this is *really* relevant. Do these symbols *really* say anything about my unconsious or is it just a random exercise of my imagination at play?

*Shrug* One will never know.

They say that familiarity breeds contempt, but is it *really* true? Robert Zajonc contradicts that theory with his concept of mere-exposure.

The mere-exposure effect is defined as the formation of a positive affective reaction (PAR) to repeated exposure to a stimulus. The theory states that the more exposure we have to a stimulus, the more we will tend to like it and familiarity breeds liking more than contempt. Apparently, things or people grow on us and we tend to acquire a taste for that or whom to which we are more exposed.

The scary implication behind this is that attraction then, can perhaps be an acquired taste and that if you just exposure yourself to a person long enough, you just might end up being attracted to them.

Contrariwise, does that mean that the less you are exposed to a person, the more you grow out of him or her? Is it really that "absence makes the heart grow fonder" or, maybe, just maybe, the "out of sight, out of mind" concept is more applicable to our modern-day society?

The mere-exposure concept is commonly applied to advertising strategies in the corporate world; it explains why commercials run for an extended length of time until the familiarity toward the advertising is acquired among consumers and has created a positive reaction to the viewers for the product.

I wonder, in order for us to get the person we like to become attracted to us, do we need to start applying this type of advertising strategy to our love life?

Shocking, isn't it?

A xanga entry has been long overdued and I do believe that it's partially because I haven't had time to read as much as I would like. Reading, somehow, allows me to extend my contemplative thoughts beyond what's feasible by me alone and helps me to explore new ideas and ways of thinking.

Today, I read an interesting thought by an unknown: "When people say, 'I’m so tired it's not even funny' or 'my head hurts so much it's not even funny', why would it even be funny in the first place?"

It amuses me, the things that people say, and yet, I must begrudgingly admit that I have caught myself using the same line.

The online Merriam-Webster dictionary defines funny as:

Main Entry: ¹fun·ny
Pronunciation: 'f&-nE
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): fun·ni·er; -est
1 a : affording light mirth and laughter : AMUSING b : seeking or intended to amuse : FACETIOUS
2 : differing from the ordinary in a suspicious, perplexing, quaint, or eccentric way : PECULIAR -- often used as a sentence modifier <funny, things didn't turn out the way we planned>
3 : involving trickery or deception <told his prisoner not to try anything funny>

Reading this definition was very enlightening because, according to Queenie, there were only two distinct definitions of funny. Funny is either, in reference to definition 1, funny -- "haha" or, 2. funny, as in weird. I was not consciously aware of the third definition though I've used it and have heard others use it before.

And, being *so* tired or having one's head hurt so much, is neither funny, weird, nor funny, haha, nor even funny in the "involving trickery or deception" sense. How did this saying originate? It really boggles the mind.

That aside, now, the problem lies in determining what the proper protocol (and wording) is necessary to include all three definitions in my usual speech. Especially when adding a third definition makes my usual line: "Funny as in weird, or funny as in haha?" much longer and much less convenient. I believe I will have to ponder this some more.

I have *way* too much free time on my hands.