June 29th, 2004



I've never been a fan of dream interpretation. Perhaps once upon a time, in a given society, you might just about have been able to concoct some workable theory or another. There might have been a little more containment for the objects on offer. Say that the hunting and eating of fish were controlled by a strict set of customs, well, you might be able to suggest that fish was somehow related to these observances. This still wouldn't prevent all the other fish ephemera: time I saw my aunt whacking that fish on the head, fishing with my childhood friend when the boat capsized, throwing up that bad fish I cooked, when I tripped in the market and knocked a table of fish over, wondering about the sound of the word fish, the familiar maritime smell of my uncle, that strange dream I had about a fish once...

Now, you can be sure that in this imagined place, let's say it's Ur for the sake of argument, this person would not have encountered Filet-O-Fish, fish fingers (so no Captain Birds Eye either), oven gloves in the shape of fish, bouillabaisse, famous oil paintings of fish, those battery powered fish that sing 'Take Me To The River', Billingsgate or Rick Stein even. You can't necessarily conclude that there was less fishness on offer in the culture, although I'm certainly tempted to. The lack of our 21st century form of fish variety may well have been supplemented by something else: larger vocabulary of fish-related words, better knowledge of fish anatomy, legendary fish, fish festivals, fish songs... Nevetheless, the nature of fish within the culture may have been distinctly different. How? I leave that to anthropologists.

To be honest, when occasionally I hear people saying something along the lines of "Ah, if you dream about a fish that means..." How the Sam Hill do you know how my internal world of fish is constructed? I'm guessing, erroneously I think, that there may have been a point, or various points, when people perhaps stood a better chance of knowing or at least guessing your world of fish experience more completely. Nevertheless, this entirely pointless aside that only argues against itself doesn't address the main faults of this simplistic form of dream interpretation:

1. Appearance of fish could be result of access to some node of consciousness/memory located very close to fish centres.
2. Belief in fish dream may not be so. Only reconstruction of dream upon awakening. Original dream without fish. Brain only able to process dream from machine-code noise into something approaching sense by insertion of fish instead of mental hexadecimal.
3. Constant dream fish presence may be result of enviromental factors. Is there a fish in your room or house? Are you sure?
4. Fish more present in lexicon than Araldite.
5. At least 85% human genetic construction probably fish. This explains all water.
6. Creates lingering guilt about nature or frequency of fish dreams. This is not good.
7. Left-handed people generally more fish orientated.
8. I can't keep this up for much longer.

Pointless introduction aside, I awoke very early this morning and went back to bed for a while at about eight. I then had a dream in which I received a reply to an invitation I sent to the record launch. I didn't recognise the name, something like Tim Wimeeeeee, but it came from some site at the Xanga domain. The reply was a colourful bit of HTML and it was hard to see the message for all the crap that was winking and flashing all around it. I attempted to delete it, but this just filled the inbox with more of these emails that then proceeded to leak out of the mail client and take over the whole screen. I tred to shut down, but that's no good either. So I'm thinking in the dream that someone has managed to create some lurid flouro-trojan that cripples Mac OSX. Ah, did it through Entourage, I think. Standard anti-Microsoft kneejerk reaction. Of course that would be the weakpoint. I knew I should have switched over to Mail.

I appreciate that this entry makes little sense.