I had a dream a few nights ago, and I can't seem to get it out of my mind. After hitting up several "Dream Dictionaries," I've concluded that there is no universally accepted answer for what happened. Just tell me what you guys think, and I'll see if it synchs up with what I'm currently thinking. In my dream, I was looking into a mirror. The face that looked back was distorted, not unlike Disney's Hunchback. The thing I couldn't help but focus on was the eyes. They were obviously incredibly tired eyes, that seemed to pierce me as they looked back. That's the only part of the dream I remember clearly. Thoughts?
learn more about the eyes(they are quite a door to open, they are your perspective and point of view, some say you can see a soul throught ones eyes).... and the mirror(it reflects only what it is shown, a very still object, but to an observer it shows you one thing you can not see from you point of view, and like you said it gave you a distorted view so therefor this mirror was more than just a flat object...... ).... and that feeling of piercing you felt, only you can truly decipher that feeling, perhaps its a pain of not being able to see something.... but only you can know the meaning.... its a dream for you....
hey well im not a dream expert or anything but i think thats really interesting try keeping a journal right next to your bed so you can write down things as soon as you wake up in order to remember more for me its really weird because i rarely like i would say a few times a month wake up and can remember having dreamed weird
sounds like the idea, what something, a part of yourself, or whatever else also, is telling you is that like all of us, you will age, or rather your body and face will, as you pass through time, but those eyes will still be the same you, though having seen much more then they have now, looking back. and personally, i'd say forget about dream dictionaries. carl jung started, or i should say inspired, an industry in those damd things with his "man and his symbols" in which he postulated an universal symboligy. i think he got it only more or less half right. there is a universal numinousness to some things and their symbolic associations. but the specific details of association depend to a great degree upon personal experience, the culture in which that experiencing takes place, and the experiencing of that culture. =^^= .../\...
