Response to William Domhoff's Comments on "Meteorite or Gemstone?…".

My paper, "Meteorite or Gemstone…" is not trying to divide dream theories into two categories as Dr. Domhoff appears to believe. Rather, it is an effort to nudge dream theory and dream work into new directions. I review many reasons why we often consider dreams "totally different" from daydreams, fantasies, etc. (the meteorite position). For each reason, I show that there is actually considerable overlap, and that the forms of mental functioning are best considered as a continuum. I point out that many dream researchers, from different perspectives, are taking the "totally different" (meteorite position) even though they may not explicitly endorse it. For instance those who insist that dreams are meaningless are taking the meteorite position since they obviously do not consider daydreams and fantasies meaningless. Very different researchers, including Dr. Domhoff's group, spend thousands of hours doing detailed analyses of dreams, counting number of words, number of characters, number of interactions, etc. I consider them too to be taking the meteorite position since they almost never analyze daydreams, fantasies, etc. in this way. I compare their efforts to spectroanalysis, which is worthwhile when studying a meteorite (but not a gemstone), since it may yield secrets about the world the meteorite came from. I am not criticizing these researchers, who have made some important discoveries, but rather trying to nudge them toward noticing the continuum, and perhaps broadening their studies to include daydreams, fantasies, and other forms of mental functioning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]