Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
Tip: To receive notifications about new content…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

Want to receive notifications about new content in PEP Web? For more information about this feature, click here

To sign up to PEP Web Alert for weekly emails with new content updates click click here.

For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

Emde, R.N. (2000). Affect Dialogue (Vol. 1, No. 1, 1999): Commentary by Robert N. Emde. Neuropsychoanalysis, 2(1):69-74.

(2000). Neuropsychoanalysis, 2(1):69-74

Affect Dialogue (Vol. 1, No. 1, 1999): Commentary by Robert N. Emde

Robert N. Emde

I am pleased to respond to the invitation to offer additional commentary on the special section of the first volume of Neuro-Psychoanalysis, entitled “Emotions: Neuro-Psychoanalytic Dialogue.” This monographlength section contains a review of Freud's theory of affect, followed by a centerpiece written from the point of view of neuroscience by Jaak Panksepp, that is in turn followed by commentaries from a number of noted neuroscientists and psychoanalysts. I assume that what might be of interest at this time would be for me to add some thoughts on what has been less emphasized or left out in the dialogue. I will also give special consideration to the developmental dimension of experience, which as Clifford Yorke and the editors in their conclusion of the special section point out, was given relatively little voice. Let me begin with an endorsement that brings with it a pointed reflection. We can be grateful in such a dialogue for the scholarly effort to advance scientific knowledge involving empirical efforts that are cumulative and that bridge prospectives between the neurosciences and psychoanalysis. In terms of what we know about affect, however, it seems fair to ask: Is such an effort premature? We can answer either yes or no. In terms of integrating vast knowledge bases in each field that can be summarized by accepted theoretical formulations, it does seem premature. Most of the commentaries from both domains acknowledge this fact. In terms of stimulating research on the other hand, it is not premature.

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2020, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.