DISCUSSION: Dr. Milton Jucovy expressed agreement with the bulk of the presentation but stressed the impact of symbolism, condensation, displacement, and representation by the opposite as additionally contributing to the unintelligibleness of the dream, beyond defense and resistance. He offered a clinical example which demonstrated, he felt, the dream's special ability to express preverbal experiences. Dr. David Milrod contested many of the details of this revision of the dream theory and in general insisted that there was value in adhering to the topographical theory in understanding dreams and other regressed mental operations. He considered Dr. Brenner to have neglected preoedipal and prestructural phenomena in his ideas of neurosogenesis and in his interpretative approach. In general, he felt it was more correct to distinguish dreams from symptoms and to accord the dream a special position in analytic work.