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.
The invitation to comment upon Panksepp's book for this journal gives occasion to encounter two quite new expressions. The first is the expression neuropsychoanalysis. I am told that this new journal originated because of the interest of a group of analysts in keeping abreast of developments in neuroscience. (Later on, a research question will arise that suggests how a reciprocal desire might present itself in neuroscience.) The term psychoanalysis itself is the one that Freud finally decided to adopt as a name for the method of free association. There seems to be no precedent for the term with the prefix neuro. Any adherence here to historical usage would be purely symbolic, referring to Freud's lifelong conviction “that there was no evidence of psychical processes occurring apart from physiological ones: that no mind could exist apart from a brain” (Jones, 1953, p. 368).
The second expression is the name of Panksepp's book, Affective Neuroscience (1998). In the preface, Panksepp describes his aims in writing the book and outlines his reasons for choosing to focus on topics of an affective nature. We should interrupt him by asking why he chose the expression affective neuroscience. A definition of the two words affect and emotion helps steer us to some clarification. In a medical dictionary such as Dorland's one finds the word affect defined as a “Freudian term” referring to a pleasant or unpleasant feeling. The subjective experience of affect is entirely