THE DREAM AS A RESPONSE TO A CUE
The Scratch-Reflex dream is then to be reconstituted
first of all as a memory-reaction determined by factors of
recency, frequency and intensity in the dreamer's experience.
The operation of these factors determines the evocation
of a specific context or apperception-mass, namely the
conversation in question, whose affinity with the external
stimulus (scratching) is now made evident. The course of
events can be followed so concretely as to permit the logical
exclusion of other supposed determinants; confining the
explanation as stated. The principle of the parsimony of
causes is here applied. I contend that the dream is neither
an infantile nor a sexual wish-fulfilment, all plausible analogies
to the contrary notwithstanding. Should anyone wish
to urge the more remote interpretations which I first manufactured,
then the burden of proof rests with him. And no proof is conclusive that
rests on mere precedent or on mere reasoning by analogy. The only
psychological proof of an interpretation is fundamentally the ability of
the interpreter to reconstitute the dream beyond peradventure. This I
propose to accomplish more in detail, showing the dream to be a reaction
to specific cues, through a process of trial-and-error, and to a limited
degree, of trial and success.
