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.
I am grateful for the interest in my paper. I will respond to these two commentaries in the order I received them.
In the introductory section of his commentary, Alan Sugarman expresses disappointment that I did not outline a general psychology in my paper. Having come to the view that it is “a manifesto designed to demonstrate the broader psychoanalytic relevance of neuroscience” (p. 1139), he says that it does not properly address such fundamental topics as development, pathogenesis, and mutative action; it ignores much of developmental and cognitive psychology; and it “goes from neurobiology and chemistry directly to mental experience” (p. 1141). These are unexpected criticisms of a paper focused on drive theory, and which makes no claim to present a general psychology. In the circumstances, I can only suggest that Sugarman reads what I have written—within this same theoretical frame-work—on those other topics that interest him (e.g., Solms 2017a,b, 2018a,b,c, 2019a,b). The same applies to what I have written on the topic of dreams, which might prompt Sugarman to reconsider his view that neurophysiology “does not provide any understanding into the meaning of dreams” (p. 1143). I think it fair to say that my work on this topic has reestablished the fact, long denied by other neuroscientists, that dreams are meaningful and motivated (see, e.g., Solms 1997, 2000a,b, 2001a,b, 2004, 2009, 2012, 2014; Solms and Hobson 2006; Solms and Turnbull 2006; Malcolm-Smith et al. 2012).