You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
August 18, 1987
In his "Notes on Psychoanalysis by a Participant Observer" Brenner (1987) makes several points which are either highly dubious or plainly incorrect in regard to the psi hypothesis and its application to psychoanalytic data and concepts. Not only is his account of a case I describe in my 1955 paper "On the Use of The Psi Hypothesis in Psycho-analysis" somewhat at variance with the facts, but so also is his intimation that publications having to do with the use of the psi hypothesis in psychoanalysis have virtually disappeared since his "Facts, Coincidence, and the Psi Hypothesis" (1957) appeared. In regard to the former, I can only refer the reader to a careful reading of my paper referred to above, where I make it quite plain that it was only the warrant for the application of the psi hypothesis that was at issue, and that whether or not anything like psi actually was in the picture could not be decisively determined under the circumstances involved. In regard to the second point, Brenner arbitrarily limits his evidence for psychoanalytic interest in psi phenomena to journals, and to a highly personal view as to what constitutes a "reputable" psychoanalytic journal at that. Offhand, I can think of a handful of books having to do with psychoanalytic applications of the psi hypothesis that have appeared since his 1957 paper, including several of my own, as well as a handful of articles in the Psychoanalytic Review.
In any case, for Brenner to imply that a disappearance of publications on psi from the analytic literature had anything in particular to do with the effect of his "Facts, Coincidence, and the Psi Hypothesis" is grievously stretching chance coincidence, as well as gratuitously disregarding my comments on this paper in the same issue of the International Journal. I can only refer the reader to these comments