Commentary by Stephen E. Levick

Reading Jason Brown's reflections on microgenetic theory reminded me of my first indelible encounter with Mind, Brain and Consciousness (1977), over twenty years ago. Microgenetic theory still strikes me as full of promise for helping to understand psychological phenomena, including what happens in psychotherapy, as manifestation of brain process. As a paradigm considered alien by the mainstream, it is not surprising that its promise has not yet been fulfilled, but does microgenetic theory bear some responsibility for this state of affairs?

As a clinical psychiatrist, I find microgenetic theory consistent with clinical experience. As a psychoanalytically oriented psychotherapist, I also conceive of myself as a kind of microgenetic facilitator for the patient. Furthermore, I think of psychiatric medications as modulating the neural milieu from which the microgenetic process unfolds. Microgenetic theory has become part of my personal clinical philosophy, and not that this is unimportant, but is there more to recommend it than this?

The Appeal of a Theory

A theory can hold appeal on several levels. On the aesthetic level, I remain enamored. However, if you ask me to be the art critic, I feel that my words are inadequate to explain why the theory is beautiful, and my conviction that it must, at a minimum contain a deep core of truth.

Whether a theory is true ought to be a separate question from whether it is beautiful. Beauty is in the eye of the creator, and if the creator gets is “right,” in the eyes of some but not all beholders. Truth, on the other hand, should be discernable by unbiased rationality, assisted by empirical investigation suggested by the theory to test it. In the end, theories are either disproved by results or the results are found not to be inconsistent with the theory. Theories cannot be proven to be true.

A theory can be useful experimentally if it suggests lines of investigation, maintaining a humility that it is not the final word on how