That said, and with all due respect to Marc Bregman and Christa Lancaster, I found their comments to be devoid of substance and specificity.

I’ll start with a contradiction. Mr. Bregman criticized Jung for not having had a direct “experience of the divine,” asserting the importance of the personal “emotions/ feelings” attached to the dreamwork experiences he cultivates for his clients. According to his assessment, Jung and others are guilty of a type of intellectualism, only understanding the archetypes from an analytical standpoint. Apparently, he has experienced Jung’s ideas at a visceral level. However, the minute a person hosts retreats and helps others achieve similar experiences, he must of necessity guide his clients in an analysis of their dreams. There is simply no escape from the application of reasonable faculties to arrive at certain interpretations.

Secondly, you were right on, Dr. Dave, in asking Mr. Bregman about what “variety of divinity” he meant when discussing his experiences. His answer was ambiguous at best, and he settled for the “this-can-be-applied-to-any-religion” answer. Even I as a non-religious/ non-believing person know enough about the world’s religions to say that they are mutually exclusive. Anyone can enhance the similarities shared by various religious systems and pretend that this equates to spiritual harmony, but there are enough differences to give us pause. Perhaps Mr. Bregman should have had the courage to say that if the “experience of the divine” is personal, then there is no need for institutionalized religion(s). In the end, he was both vague and politically correct.

Thirdly, Dr. Dave, you explained to Ms. Lancaster that you didn’t fully understand the concepts associated with the so-called “string.” I loved that you asked her about it, for the same thing was going through my mind. Her explanation was deplorable; it clarified nothing and seemed hastily improvised. Maybe I’m too skeptical; I can be dismissed as not being “open” enough to such claims, but I’m a fan of the burden of proof. It gives me some mental hygiene. No, I don’t know everything, but if a person brings up some obscure notions associated with a “string,” I demand some specificity. Otherwise, I’m reduced to having to accept any contention that is dropped on my plate.

Lastly, why must everything be imbued with “meaning”? Don’t we make our own “meaning” based on projections, preferences, and/ or experiences? Must a dream have a “meaningful” intention with the aim of guiding us to experiencing the “divine”? It seems awfully self-centered to me. I’d hate to give any dream this bloated sense of importance. I agree that some dreams might be meaningful. Some may be random.

Overall, I still love your show, Dr. Dave, and I would love to hear a lesson from the course on dreams that you mentioned you teach. I suppose I’m a little fed up with the kind of “experts” who often find themselves on Oprah’s couch. There are a lot of feel-good, nebulous assertions presented that add up to pure wind upon closer scrutiny. You can tell Mr. Bregman that my inner “voice” tells me to question his premises.