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.
Dear Editor,
I was surprised to read in the IJPA that the theoretical base of neuropsychoanalysis, dual-aspect monism, is incoherent (Talvitie and Ihanus, 2011, p. 1597) or that “discussions on the subject of neuropsychoanalysis often wander aimlessly, devoid of clear points and arguments” (p. 1598). As the authors suggest, Occam's razor is an excellent tool for addressing issues and is indeed what I used in my article, Just what lies beyond the pleasure principle?, which showed the use of neuroscience tools to address metapsychological concepts of drive, cathexis (supported), repetition compulsion and death instinct (shown by Occam's razor to be explained more simply by earlier Freudian concepts) (Johnson, 2008). How to use neuropsychoanalytic interpretations was discussed in my article on cocaine addiction (Johnson, 2009). Without neuroscience interpretations, it would be difficult to operate on my medical school-based neuropsychoanalytic addiction service that had 2570 outpatient encounters in 2011. Drug dreams: A neuropsychoanalytic hypothesis (Johnson, 2001) also offers strong evidence that dreams are exactly an expression of wish-fulfillment - in contrast with Talvite and Ihanus' assertion that neuropsychoanalysis could not contribute on this issue (p. 1597).
Solms's (2000) dreaming pathway, established by his painstaking empirical research, solidly supports this psychoanalytic concept. His work, and mine, should be examples of the success of the dual-aspect monism approach.