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.
Following the successful debut of Oxford-style debates in the congresses of Athens and Cape Town, the 15th neuropsychoanalysis congress had its own motion: This house believes that neuroscientific terms must never replace psychoanalytic ones. Moderated by Katerina Fotopoulou, the debate took on one of the biggest discussions in neuropsychoanalysis, which is that of two languages in a dialogue that are thus exposed to mutual influence and updating, but not necessarily to supplanting each other. There are several opinions on the topic, and four colleagues who have been active in the neuroscience-psychoanalysis dialogue for a number of years were asked to share their thoughts. For the motion were Ariane Bazan and Richard Kessler. Against were Lisa Ouss and Nikolai Axmacher. Clinical and research perspectives were represented on both sides of the question: on the “for” side, Kessler is a psychoanalyst, and Bazan is both a biologist and a psychoanalyst; on the “against” side, Lisa Ouss is a child psychiatrist and a psychoanalytic psychotherapist who also conducts research, and Nikolai Axmacher is a cognitive neuroscientist. In this issue, we present essays based on the speakers’ opening statements. Responses will be invited from a range of contributors for online viewing, and selected responses, including those of the original debaters, will appear in a forthcoming issue of the journal.
Daniela Flores Mosri
dannmos@yahoo.com
Speaking to the subject or speaking to the function: each address requires its proper terms
Ariane Bazan
In neuropsychoanalysis, the epistemological line most held is the “dual aspect monism” perspective. This perspective holds that “our brains, including mind, are made of one kind of stuff, cells, but we perceive this stuff in two different ways” (Solms & Turnbull, 2003, pp. 56–58; our italics). One is the neuroscientists’ “objective” way, or the brain, which we dissect “with scalpel and microscope or look at it with brain scans and then trace neurochemi