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 SIR,
You ask whether I wish to reply to Dr Reuben Fine's letter written in response to my review of his book 'The Psychoanalytic Vision' (Int. Rev. Psychoanal., 9: 360–3, 1982). Let me clarify what I think is at issue. Dr Fine and I do share much the same vision for psychoanalysis, and my review was written out of the sadness that I think he did our collective vision a gross disservice through sweeping overstatement of psychoanalytic claim and potential and (I thought mischievous) devaluation of other avenues of intelligence of man.
Dr Fine regrets that I make him out 'to be rather wild'. I think that his book does read that way. The statements I have made from it are all in quotations and referenced to the source. There are 47 such specific references in a three page review—I have just counted them. The reader is invited to study Dr Fine's book to judge for himself/herself whether I have misquoted or misrepresented either the verbatim text or the spirit of the context. I am happy that in his letter of reply, Dr Fine has found and quoted more properly moderate statements from other parts of his book, which does have a total of 521 pages of text. Actually, I welcome very much the much more moderate tone of his whole letter. I feel that it represents more both the spirit and the content with which I can myself identify very readily with him.
Sincerely yours