Response by John A. Lindon

The dream of Dr. Siegel's patient may seem like a “dream from above” or an indication of analytic progress that he could face both discoveries: his own about the moon and his analyst's about his unconscious. But it is an example of “dream-action”: while dreaming of pulling away the moon's veils, he awakened and wrote the mathematical formula which was to pull away some veils of the moon in reality. The dream bore the responsibility for the formula becoming manifest.

Dr. Lorand rightfully points out that Dr. V.'s father is also represented in his mother's dream and how this mobilized guilt feelings over infantile death wishes toward both mother and father.

It is striking how much Dr. Eiduson's remarks—and Dr. Lorand's and Dr. Wisdom's—could apply to the example given by Dr. Siegel. Perhaps for creative people, dreams serve as a “regression in the service of the ego” to perform a creative act which might not come to consciousness in other ways. One wonders what device will be used as psychoanalytic sophistication spreads and people no longer can disclaim responsibility for their dreams. Perhaps dream-action like grand-hysteria will disappear.

Professor Wisdom interprets the role of the pathologist as that of a key subordinate and confidant. The creative scientist must be able to destroy what had gone before by rendering it obsolete, must have “a good conscience”—which Dr. Wisdom's interpretation of the pathologist's role fits well. The need for an externalized good conscience was apparent; perhaps every innovator needs it. Although it is his striving for a good conscience which stimulates his creativity as reparation for fantasied destructiveness, the innovator probably must have external reassurance also to overcome his inner doubts. Without both he may be impotent.

I see creative scientists as unconsciously destroying what had gone before by rendering it obsolete—but then rebuilding and extending it, making a bridge to the new knowledge. This does more than to undo dama