Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
Tip: To copy parts of an article…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

To copy a phrase, paragraph, or large section of an article, highlight the text with the mouse and press Ctrl + C. Then to paste it, go to your text editor and press Ctrl + V.

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

Blass, R. Carmeli, Z. (2016). Response to Kessler, Sandberg, and Busch: The Case for and against Neuropsychoanalysis. Int. J. Psycho-Anal., 97(4):1155-1158.

(2016). International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 97(4):1155-1158

Response to Kessler, Sandberg, and Busch: The Case for and against Neuropsychoanalysis Related Papers

Rachel Blass and Zvi Carmeli

Dear Editor,

In our 2015 paper, “Further evidence for the case against neuropsychoanalysis” as well as in our earlier work on this topic (Blass and Carmeli, 2007; Carmeli and Blass, 2013), we present arguments that show that despite the existence of obvious and proven ties between brain and mind, neuroscience has no contribution to psychoanalysis; moreover, it can never have any.

Luba Kessler in her letter states that something must be amiss with our position, but only offers yet another formulation of the tie between brain and mind. She does not take issue with a single one of our arguments regarding the irrelevance of such ties to psychoanalysis and thus her reflections don't really address our critique.

For example, her comments about how a neuroscientifically informed psychoanalyst would understand Ms A do not in any way support the idea that being so informed is worthwhile. She speaks of Ms A's trauma as a known fact which “undoubtedly” had certain specific effects both psychological and physiological. However, from the description of the case the reality of this trauma was precisely what was in doubt. But even assuming it happened (and we accept that it may have) how should the specific neuroscientific findings on the effects of trauma on the hippocampus impact us as psychoanalysts? An example of how neuroscience might shape what the analyst says or does in the treatment of Ms A would have been most helpful here. Instead, Kessler offers a very general theoretical comment, which does not advance our understanding.

[This is a summary excerpt from the full text of the journal article. The full text of the document is available to journal subscribers on the publisher's website here.]

Copyright © 2021, 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.