As for “ways of overcoming the puzzle”, I think you’re closer to my current take when you say you “resonate with the puzzle”. That cliche about life not being a puzzle to be solved but a mystery to be lived… easier said than accepted!

I’m still fascinated by Reich’s bodywork, and Arnold Mindell’s “dreambody” concept, that sees dreams and body sensations as different forms of the same thing. But there’s something in The Dream and the Underworld (which Hillman admits is exaggerated to make a point - he sees “chuztpah” as part of his method!) that seems really important and intriguing, worth grappling with even (or especially) if you don’t get any “conclusion” or “model of reality” from it.

What puzzles me most is: if dreams aren’t literal, surely they’re metaphorical. And metaphor implies interpretation, no? So what exactly is a non-interpretive approach to dreams? It’s a lot to do with complexifying our simplistic reactions, I think - letting metaphors unfold, but in a way that resonates with the sensibility of dreams themselves. Not easy!

Interesting post. I really got to start working on my dreams again. As things are now, I either don´t dream or just don´t remember them at all.