Discussion

Dr. Reid's thesis is that there is unconscious anxiety and that it is a useful concept. For me what he says by implication and toward the end of his paper is more important because it relates to the nature of anxiety in general. Also, I do not feel

he proves his original assertions. He is aware that he starts out with the handicap of the dualism conscious-unconscious. He attempts to extricate himself from this self-created dilemma by if-then and as-if propositions, as well as by resorting to the static concept of potential anxiety, but I do not feel he succeeds. Dr. Reid and I have many points of agreement. However, our starting points of investigation and focus of interest are different. What he puts in small letters and at the end, I put in capitals and at the beginning. Dr. Reid starts with a special case, unconscious anxiety and what is unknown; I start with anxiety in general and with what is known and knowable. I assert anxiety is, then ask what is the what and how of anxiety here and now? We live in the ever-enduring present, much as we might recall of the past and imagine of the future. The always now is ever present to be investigated, and as we do our horizons of knowledge are extended backward and forward in time and space, as well as spatially sidewards and in depth.

From different starting points Dr. Reid and I conclude that anxiety is a multidimensional response of an organism at various levels of integration. I agree that the data essential to form a picture of anxiety are what are observable by an outsider and the patient—biochemical, neurophysiological and behavioral—and what is introspected by the patient—his communicated awareness of his feelings, thoughts and wishes. I agree with Dr. Reid that anxiety is a subject-object complex. But again only at the end does Dr. Reid say a patient may be considered to be anxious whether he is aware of it or not. The central question is not: Does the patient feel anxious? But: Is he being anxious? Using a holist