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.
In writing the book review of The Psychic Thread (this issue, pp. 677-678), by Elizabeth E. Mintz, I was strongly disposed to include two points that were omitted: First, some comments on the difficulties encountered by psi investigators —the author and myself included —in surmounting the deterministic approach that has characterized psychoanalysis and science in general for so many years. For alongside Dr. Mintz's appreciation of inexplicable epiphanies that occur in her marathon groups one senses a lingering burden of frustration that these defy causal explanation. Had it not been for my imprecise knowledge of the philosophy and methodology of science, coupled with regret that my husband, Benjamin Nelson, was no longer alive to discuss this theme with me, I would have added some remarks on the deterministic components of logical positivism, as it has influenced our search for proof and credibility in psychoanalytic-psi research.
Second, I wanted to cite an observation by Jule Eisenbud (1981): “One observer after another has noted that when he becomes interested in parapsychology, instances seem to come his way in flocks, as if flushed out of the bushes by invisible beaters”(p. 72). I immediately recognized that this quote was not only irrelevant to my context, but that its insertion quite clearly provided a sub rosa excuse to inject, through its cited reference, a bit of self-advertising, since the statement had appeared in a discussion of my own writings. So with considerable shame I deleted this self-incriminating evidence.
Indeed, I was in the very process of analyzing my defensiveness in the first instance and my competitiveness with Dr. Mintz in the