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 of course pleased by the substantial degree of agreement with my main conclusions. Due to limitations of space, I will focus on the points of disagreement.
Ariane Bazan says I have conflated affect and drive (i.e., Trieb, which Strachey called “instinct”). She also thinks that I confuse drive and instinct, in the modern sense of the word. First, let me say that I did not intend to do so, because I do not consider these things to be synonymous at all. I define drive as “a measure of the demand made upon the mind for work in consequence of its connection with the body” (Freud, 1915a, p. 122), where the “measure” is the degree of deviation from a homeostatic set-point (with implications for survival and reproductive success).1 I do not believe that this deviation itself is something mental, but the “demand” it generates is felt in the pleasure-unpleasure series. This (felt demand) is affect, which in my view is the origin of mind. The “work” that flows from affect is cognition, the functional purpose of which is to reduce affect—that is, to reduce prediction error (free energy). The purpose of cognition is to bring the