×

Arbitrary Prompt (39223-04)

← Back to all books

39223-04

Freud's 1895 Project Analysis
  • Explores the transition in Freud's work between neurological brain science and psychological mind theories.
  • Highlights Freud's critique of localization-based explanations for speech disorders like aphasia.
  • Advocates for functional factors over topographical ones in understanding medical symptoms.
  • Reflects on the shift from traditional neuropathology to the narrative-driven case histories of psychotherapy.
Freud’s 1895 Project From Mind to Brain and Back Again ZVI LOTHANEa Department of Psychiatry, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York 10029, USA After . . . the discovery of motor and sensory aphasia Broca and Wernicke . . . set about tracing the more subtle symptoms of aphasia . . . to factors of localization. In this way they arrived at the hypothesis of conduction aphasia, with subcortical and transcortical, and motor and sensory forms. This critical study is directed against this view of speech disorders and it seeks to introduce for their explanation functional factors in place of the topographical ones. —F REUD (1897b [1891b] I have not always been a psychotherapist. Like other neuropathologists, I was trained to apply local diagnoses and electro- prognosis, and it still strikes me myself as strange that the case histories I write should read like short stories and that, as one might say, they lack the serious stamp of science. I must console myself with the reflection that the nature of the subject is evidently responsible for this, rather than any preference of my own. —F REUD (1895d)

Freud's Intellectual Itinerary

  • Freud's early intellectual development was shaped by a diverse mix of world literature, Aristotelian philosophy, and rigorous neuroscientific training.
  • His transition from neurology to psychoanalysis was catalyzed by his collaboration with Josef Breuer and his studies on hysteria under Charcot in Paris.
  • The 1895 'Project for a Scientific Psychology' represents a significant historical detour where Freud attempted to reconcile the mechanics of the brain with the functions of the mind.
  • The text identifies a fundamental tension between materialist 'peripherist' models of the brain and 'centrist' conceptions of the person as an integrated whole.
  • Freud's work reflects a recurring philosophical struggle between viewing the individual as a collection of psychophysical states versus a singular, volitional soul or ego.
In the Project Freud returned to the brain, thus making a temporary detour from mind to brain, an historical example of recurrent problems in mind–body philosophies.
In the intellectual itinerary that led Freud to the creation of psychoanalysis, an ad- venture of the mind, he began by being exposed to world literature and the philos- ophy and psychology of Johann Friedrich Herbart (Andersson, 1962) and ImmanuelKant in his high school days; later he attended the lectures of the Aristotelian FranzBrentano at Vienna University (Freud, 1990). After graduating from medical schoolFreud did a stint in psychiatry under Theodor Meynert at the Vienna General Hospi-tal and worked as a neuropathologist, which in those days meant both neurologist andneuroscientist, investigating the anatomy of the central nervous system under the in-fluence of the brain theories of mind held by his teachers. While working in the Insti-tute of Physiology headed by Ernst BrĂŒcke, one of the founders of the mid-nineteenthcentury Helmholtz School of Physiology, he became acquainted with Josef Breuer, hisfuture mentor and collaborator on the psychology of hysteria and its psychologicaltreatment, catharsis, the precursor of psychoanalytic treatment. In 1883 Freud was 43aAddress for correspondence: 1435 Lexington Avenue, New Y ork, New Y ork 10128. e-mail, zl@doc.mssm.edu told by Breuer about his case of Anna O., but it is only after he learned more about hys- teria in Paris from Charcot in 1885–1886 that Freud became seriously interested in hys-teria and other neuroses and in the study of mind in health and disease. The first yearsof the 1890s saw the publication of Freud’s major formulations of the neuroses (Freud& Breuer, 1893a; Freud, 1894a; Freud, 1895b; Freud & Breuer, 1895d). In addition, im-portant statements were made by Freud in unpublished letters and drafts (Freud,1887–1904). In 1895, harking back to the teachings of Ernst BrĂŒcke, Theodor Meynert and BrĂŒcke’s assistant Sigmund Exner, Freud composed his “project of psychology,” a col-lection of drafts included in his letters to Wilhelm Fliess (Freud, 1887–1904) and pub-lished posthumously in 1950. In the Project Freud returned to the brain, thus making a temporary detour from mind to brain, an historical example of recurrent problemsin mind–body philosophies. Ever since the ancient Greek philosophers pondered the relation between body and behavior, specifically, between brain and mind, two competing conceptions have crys-tallized: (1) the materialist, physiological, or determinist idea that matter, or brain, isthe cause of mind; and (2) the personalist, psychological, or voluntarist idea that it isthe person—or something central in the person called the soul, self, or ego—that is thecause, or author, of mind, i.e., thought, emotion, and intelligent action; the person isalso called the individual, literally, one that is not further divisible, the integrated whole that is larger than the sum of its parts, also implying the wholeness of the person’s con-sciousness of herself or himself, of his or her body, and of the world. I would like tocall the latter the centrist conception of person and contrast it with a peripherist em-phasis on the sense organs, the body’s surface and its organs, the source of stimuliboth exogenous and endogenous impinging on consciousness. Materialistic philoso-phies tended to favor peripherist models of a decentered person (i.e., a being reducedto or caused by its elementary psychophysical states). Centrism and peripherism are twocompeting views than run through Freud’s entire Project. Traditionally, medicine has been predominantly body- and brain-oriented, alongside such representatives of philosophical atomism as Democritus in ancient Greece andHippolyte Taine in nineteenth-century France. Mind philosophers like Aristotle andKant were more interested in the person and his abilities, with Herbart falling some-where in between.

Freud's Philosophical Conflict

  • Freud's early work reflects a tension between centrism, which focuses on the person, and peripherism, which reduces behavior to psychophysical states.
  • The nineteenth-century biological revolution in psychiatry sought to depersonalize the individual by reducing intelligence to molecular motion and reflex mechanisms.
  • Despite his training as a neuropathologist, Freud was fundamentally a philosopher of mind whose true passion shaped psychoanalysis into a unique personalist psychology.
  • Freud maintained a lifelong commitment to his sexual instinctual drive theories, even as he acknowledged that such theories could border on mythology.
  • The text distinguishes between method, which is grounded in experience, and theory, which can become a reductionist 'fetish' when overgeneralized.
The old theological belief in the immortal soul, or mankind’s pride in its higher intellectual and spiritual capacities, both housed in the cerebrum of Homo erectus, were now relegated to the dustbin of discarded doctrines.
reducedto or caused by its elementary psychophysical states). Centrism and peripherism are twocompeting views than run through Freud’s entire Project. Traditionally, medicine has been predominantly body- and brain-oriented, alongside such representatives of philosophical atomism as Democritus in ancient Greece andHippolyte Taine in nineteenth-century France. Mind philosophers like Aristotle andKant were more interested in the person and his abilities, with Herbart falling some-where in between. It was not until the second part of the nineteenth century, owing to advances in neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, chemistry, physics, and mathematics,and the spread of the teaching of evolution during that period, that traditionalbrain/behavior debates acquired new momentum, so that old problems were rephrasedin new scientific language. The old theological belief in the immortal soul, or mankind’spride in its higher intellectual and spiritual capacities, both housed in the cerebrum ofHomo erectus, were now relegated to the dustbin of discarded doctrines by the tri- umphant first brain-based biological revolution in psychiatry one hundred years ago.In a climate where basic sciences were becoming increasingly quantitative, a strongtendency arose to decenter and depersonalize the person, to give causal priority tolower over the higher structures and functions, to reduce intelligence to the motion ofmolecules, the individual to impressions and impulses, the brain itself to a highly de-veloped reflex mechanism. These ideas were also used to redefine mental health and dis-ease. Similar claims are being made today by the current second biological revolutionof the neurosciences that is growing on the ruins of dynamic psychiatry and psycho-analysis. As already indicated, in the Project Freud embraced both centrist, personalist, and voluntarist philosophies and peripherist (i.e., determinist) scientific conceptions. Butwhat was Freud’s enduring identity? Contrary to efforts of Strachey and others to por-tray him as a heroic materialistic scientist, on his own showing, Freud was fundamen-ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 44 tally a philosopher of mind, a person-oriented methodologist of mind. In spite of his medical education and his early career as a neuropathologist, his true love remainedphilosophy and it shaped psychoanalysis as a method of therapy and research: a uniqueempirical personalist psychoanalytic psychology, like none before it and none since.However, some of the materialism Freud acquired in his scientific days left an imprinton the Project and also endures in some of his later speculations about mind. Thus, he never abandoned entirely the determinist causes of behavior, as in his sex- ual instinctual drive theories in health and disease, which he cherished as his most im-portant scientific contribution. He started his sexual theories in the period discussedhere and would finalize them in his 1905 Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality. Note Freud’s emphasis on theory, not just three essays on sexuality but on the theory of sex- uality, that is, the sexual theory of the neuroses, or the libido theory. This emphasis alsomarks the difference between theory and method. In psychology method is what method does: it can be operationalized and it is close to ordinary experience, while theory is further away in the realm of speculation, ab-straction, and generalization. Thus method can be observed and used, while theory canbe confirmed or disconfirmed. When a given theory is overgeneralized, it becomes afetish, a shibboleth, an ism, as in Freudism. Thus, any pan(Greek for all) ideology is apt to end in reductionism, as, for example, in pansexualism, the idea that everythingis either sexual in nature or caused by sex, a charge against which Freud would defendhimself over the years. Freud himself joked that his theories were a kind of mythology,like the theories of modern physics.

Method Versus Mythology

  • The author distinguishes between scientific method, which observes real phenomena, and mythology, which elevates specific theories into universal explanatory principles.
  • Freudian pansexualism is presented as a 'sex mythology' because it attempts to use a single instinct as a key to all human neuroses and behaviors.
  • The brain-mind juncture remains a 'sealed mystery,' suggesting that while the brain is a necessary organ for the mind, the mind cannot be reduced to physiological functions.
  • Reducing psychology to brain physiology is described as 'brain mythology,' falsely positioning the brain as the sole cause of behavior rather than one link in a complex chain.
  • The quest to localize the 'seat of the soul' in the brain is a two-millennia-old pursuit that satisfies a human need for origin stories rather than scientific fact.
Thus, any attempt to reduce psychology to brain physiology will forever remain a brain mythology.
observed and used, while theory canbe confirmed or disconfirmed. When a given theory is overgeneralized, it becomes afetish, a shibboleth, an ism, as in Freudism. Thus, any pan(Greek for all) ideology is apt to end in reductionism, as, for example, in pansexualism, the idea that everythingis either sexual in nature or caused by sex, a charge against which Freud would defendhimself over the years. Freud himself joked that his theories were a kind of mythology,like the theories of modern physics. Let us be clear on the difference between method and mythology. Sexuality is not a myth, it exists and its manifestations can be observed. Similarly, conflicts about sexu-ality are real in a given situation and do cause psychological symptoms such as anxi-ety and depression, and their elucidation is therapeutic—this much is within themethod. But a theory of sexuality elevated to a universal explanatory principle, con-ceived as a universal cause, as a panchreston— a thing for all things—as a key to all the neuroses, is sex mythology. Mythology here means creating a story, or as Freud wouldsay to Fliess, a fairy tale, to represent an object, an agent, or model of causality, for ex-ample, representing the sexual instinct as the god Eros, an embodiment of a force thatcauses persons to become sexually attracted to each other. The need to create myths sat-isfies a basic human need, from early childhood on, to answer questions of causationand origins: who created the world, who created God, who created me? Of course,such questions can only be tackled by philosophy and theology, never by science. By ex-tension, myth in common usage is a designation of something that is a fiction, a wished-for ideal, not a fact, as race or class equality in the United States is a myth. Something similar can be said of the brain. In normal conditions, the brain exists and an intact brain is a precondition for an intact mind, whereas in pathological con-ditions brain lesions cause neurological and psychological defects and disorders. Be-yond that the brain’s physiological functioning is silent, that is, we are not conscious ofits functioning as such, and the brain–mind juncture is still a sealed mystery, or, as ex-pressed by the nineteenth-century pioneer of brain physiology, du Bois-Reymond, oneof the members of the Helmholtz School, the brain–mind juncture is not only a sem- per ignoramus, a we-do-not-know, but a semper ignorabimus, a we-shall -never- know, un- less the world as we know will change in some radical way, unless some of the utopiasdescribed by neuroscientists will one day become a reality. Until then, speakingmethodologically and operationally, and taking account of the hierarchical organiza-tion of ordinary integrated human behavior, the normal mind needs its brain but is notreducible to it. Thus, any attempt to reduce psychology to brain physiology will foreverremain a brain mythology. The central brain myth is that brain is the cause of behavior, rather than its beingLOTHANE: FROM MIND TO BRAIN 45 one link in the chain of behavior, the brain being a necessary organ in which mind lives but not sufficient to explain mind. When we think, feel, or act, we are no more aware ofthe brain than we are aware of our retinas when seeing or our ears when hearing: the or-gans do their work silently and unconsciously. Furthermore, when we think and feel andact, many more organs are involved in the psycho-physio-biological chain: the othernerves of the body, the neurohumoral and chemical transmitters, the muscles, the blood. The myth of the brain as a cause of mind is coeval with mankind’s eternal quest of the seat of the soul, and the history of this quest of localization is at least two millen-nia old (Revesz, 1917).

The Myth of Brain Psychiatry

  • The text challenges the 'brain mythology' that views mental diseases solely as physical brain diseases, a concept that dates back two millennia.
  • Freud broke with the anatomical traditions of his teachers, such as Meynert and Griesinger, by adopting a holistic and functionalist approach to psychology.
  • The shift toward a psychological conceptualization of neurosis allowed Freud to treat functional complaints through hypnotic suggestion and psychotherapy.
  • Breuer and Freud argued that using neurological terms like 'cortical excitations' to describe mental experiences was merely a 'pointless disguise' for psychological reality.
  • Freud's methodology in 'Studies on Hysteria' drew inspiration from imaginative writers to gain insight into the course of mental processes.
The substitution of one term for another would seem to be no more than a pointless disguise.
when seeing or our ears when hearing: the or-gans do their work silently and unconsciously. Furthermore, when we think and feel andact, many more organs are involved in the psycho-physio-biological chain: the othernerves of the body, the neurohumoral and chemical transmitters, the muscles, the blood. The myth of the brain as a cause of mind is coeval with mankind’s eternal quest of the seat of the soul, and the history of this quest of localization is at least two millen-nia old (Revesz, 1917). Brain mythology and brain psychiatry were enthroned in themiddle of the nineteenth century on the ruins of the former psychological psychiatry,when psychiatric eminence Wilhelm Griesinger, admired by Freud, made the pro-nouncement that “mental diseases are brain diseases,” an idea that is coming back witha vengeance in our time. Similar ideas were also upheld by two eminent practitionersof brain anatomo-psychiatry: Freud’s teacher in Vienna, Theodor Meynert, and hiscompetitor in Leipzig, Paul Flechsig, none other than Judge Schreber’s own psychia-trist (Lothane, 1992): they all described psychological and psychopathological phe-nomena as caused by real or hypothetical brain structures. Freud broke with this tra-dition in his work on aphasia (1891b), considered by some to be his firstpsychoanalytically inspired text, as reflected in one of the epigraphs to this paper, es-pousing a holistic (i.e., functionalist, or personalist) approach even in the face of ob-vious structural brain damage. The road lay open to the psychological conceptualiza-tion of the neuroses. EVOLUTION OF FREUD’S DYNAMIC AND PERSONALIST CONCEPTIONS OF NEUROSIS In 1886 Freud started a private practice of medicine, largely seeing patients with ner- vous, or functional, complaints, and he treated these with hypnotic suggestion andpsychotherapy, reporting on one success story six years later, his first published case(Freud, 1892–1893). The orientation in that paper was personalist, methodological, andpsychological. In 1893 Breuer and Freud published their revolutionary Preliminary Communica- tion in the prestigious Neurologisches Zentralblatt, the premier forum for neu- ropathologists. In the spring of 1895 Breuer and Freud came out with their ground-breaking Studies on Hysteria, in some respects a return to the forgotten legacy of the early nineteenth-century humanistic psychiatry that taught that symptoms are psy-chological in nature and have meaning, but that in other respects represented a new de-parture. In the chapter on the treatment of hysteria, Freud had this to say about hismethod: “[I]n the study of hysteria a detailed description of mental processes such aswe are accustomed to find in the writings of imaginative writers enables me, with theuses of a few psychological formulas, to obtain at least some insight into the course ofthat affection” (Breuer & Freud, 1895d, pp. 160–161). The scientist and humanistwithin Freud are the two perennially unreconciled identities. In the Studies Freud does not discuss the brain at all, while Breuer expresses their joint position as follows: In what follows little mention will be made of the brain and none whatever of mol- ecules. Psychical processes will be dealt with in the language of psychology; andindeed, it cannot possibly be otherwise ....F o r w hile ideas are constant objects of our experience and are familiar to us in all their shades of meaning, “cortical ex-citations” are on the contrary rather in the nature of a postulate, objects which weANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 46 hope to be able to identify in the future. The substitution of one term for another would seem to be no more than a pointless disguise. (Breuer, in Freud & Breuer,1895d, p. 185) Breuer’s method to speak psychologically about psychological experiences is still op- erationally valid.

Breuer and the Ideogenic Affect

  • Breuer struggled to reconcile psychological experiences with the physiological postulate of cortical excitations, a tension that persists in modern neuroimaging.
  • While technology can now visualize metabolic brain events, mental events still require verbal communication between conscious individuals to be understood.
  • The text critiques Breuer's initial resistance to the idea that all hysterical symptoms are ideogenic, noting his confusion over the physiological components of somatic signs.
  • Breuer eventually focused on ideogenic affects, which are triggered by perceptions or ideas and resolved through motor discharge to restore mental equilibrium.
  • The author argues that hysterical symptoms, regardless of their physiological correlates, should be viewed as psychological modes of communication to an audience.
But we still have no machinery that can record mental events: those still must be verbalized by a conscious person to another conscious person.
objects of our experience and are familiar to us in all their shades of meaning, “cortical ex-citations” are on the contrary rather in the nature of a postulate, objects which weANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 46 hope to be able to identify in the future. The substitution of one term for another would seem to be no more than a pointless disguise. (Breuer, in Freud & Breuer,1895d, p. 185) Breuer’s method to speak psychologically about psychological experiences is still op- erationally valid. However, his dream of finding objects in the shape of cortical exci-tations has been realized only to the extent that, thanks to new sophisticated technol-ogy (like positron emission tomography), we can now visualize and record variousmetabolic brain events. But we still have no machinery that can record mental events:those still must be verbalized by a conscious person to another conscious person. It is easy to understand ideas as psychological; it is more confusing to accept “ideogenic affects” (Breuer, 1895d:201). Thus, at first Breuer disagrees with PaulMöbius, a noted Leipzig neurologist, psychotherapist, and author, who held that allhysterical symptoms are ideogenic, that is, psychological in content and caused byideas. A similar ideogenic conception of traumatic hysteria had been earlier pro-pounded by Charcot. We see Breuer baffled by somatic hysterical symptoms, like redskin blotches and pain, for these are caused not just by ideas but also by “the abnor-mal excitability of the nervous system” (Breuer, 1895d, p. 191), thus seeming to containan irreducible physiological component. Even more tellingly, Breuer believes, as mostpsychiatrists still do today, that vivid visual hallucinations owe their supposedly ob-jective character to excitation of the sensory areas of the cortex and the “perceptualorgan” (1895d, p. 191), when in reality all hallucinations belong in the realm of dreamsand images and have nothing to do with sensory organs or perception (Lothane, 1982).The reality of cerebral processes and excitations aside, what Breuer cannot grasp is thatso-called hysterical symptoms, be they of the nature of ideas, sensations, functional so-matic signs, or vivid images, whatever their physiological correlates and concomitants,are still to be regarded as psychological and psychogenic modes of self-expression andcommunications to an audience (Lothane, 1995, 1997a). Freud is heir to similar con-fusions and equivocations. It is because of this inability to leave behind the brain and the physiological appa- ratuses that Breuer continues to be concerned with “intracerebral tonic excitations,” aconcept fashioned by his colleague Exner, a teacher of Freud, which sends him specu-lating about neural conduction, the energy in quiescent and excited nerves fibers, com-bined with the idea that “there exists in the organism a ‘ tendency to keep intracerebral excitation constant ’ (Freud)” (Breuer, 1895d, p. 197; emphasis in the original). In the end Breuer manages to overcome his “physiologism.” Thus he is clear on the reality ofphysiogenic affects, such as the sexual excitement of puberty, “this endogenous height-ening of excitation, determined by the action of the sex glands . . . firmly linked (in the normal course of things) with the perception or an idea of the other sex . . . [and] with the remarkable phenomenon of falling in love” (1895d, p. 200). “No attempt will bemade here,” declares Breuer, “to formulate either a psychology or a physiology of theaffects,” except for what is “of importance for pathology and moreover only forideogenic affects—those that are called up by perceptions or ideas” (1895d, p. 201).Here the salient point is that “all the disturbances of mental equilibrium which we callacute affects go along with an increase of excitation . . . and level out the increased ex-citation by motor discharge” (Breuer, 1895d, p. 201; emphasis in the original).

From Affects to Energy

  • Breuer and Freud conceptualized acute affects as increases in excitation that require leveling out through motor discharge or abreaction.
  • Freud's early theory of defense neuroses involved robbing incompatible ideas of their 'sum of excitation' to resolve conflicts between the ego and sexual ideas.
  • The detachment of affect from ideas manifests in three distinct mechanisms: conversion hysteria, displacement into obsessions, and exchange into anxiety.
  • James Strachey's renaming of Freud's 'Project' to include the word 'Scientific' reflects a historical bias toward prioritizing Freud's materialistic neurological discourse over his psychological insights.
Strachey’s renaming harbors a hidden bias: to promote Freud the scientist over Freud the philosopher, to represent Freud’s materialistic discourse about mind as more valid than Freud’s psychological discourse about mind.
ere,” declares Breuer, “to formulate either a psychology or a physiology of theaffects,” except for what is “of importance for pathology and moreover only forideogenic affects—those that are called up by perceptions or ideas” (1895d, p. 201).Here the salient point is that “all the disturbances of mental equilibrium which we callacute affects go along with an increase of excitation . . . and level out the increased ex-citation by motor discharge” (Breuer, 1895d, p. 201; emphasis in the original). Such a leveling out, or abreaction, of strangulated affects was the centerpiece of the cathartictherapy of neurotic symptoms first introduced by Breuer. What emerges from the foregoing analysis is that it is somehow natural to correlate the excitations that go with strong emotions (i.e., agitations and commotions) withquantities of brain energies and brain excitations. But of course, when it comes toemotions, there is no need to speak of the parts of a person, like the brain, rather thanLOTHANE: FROM MIND TO BRAIN 47 the whole person. Freud did just that in the Studies on Hysteria and in the first paper on the neuropsychoses of defense, “an attempt at a psychological theory of acquiredhysteria, of many phobias and obsessions and of certain hallucinatory psychoses”(Freud, 1894a). The strangulated emotions Breuer and Freud discussed in their Preliminary Com- munication were mainly the commotions of conflict resulting from rage. But the mostfrequent feelings, emotions and moods Freud saw in his patients were fear and anxiety,and those he connected to the unpleasure resulting from conflict and frustration inone’s sexual life. (Until his essay on mourning and melancholia of 1917, Freud post-poned discussion of that other most important source of mood disorder, depression re-sulting from loss and repressed anger.) In his paper of 1894 Freud offers his twofoldworking hypothesis of the defense neuroses: (a)“to resolve the contradiction between [an] incompatible idea [in particular, a sexual one] and [the] ego by means of thoughtactivity” (1894a:47), chiefly by means of repression; and (b)“turning [a] powerful idea into a weak one in robbing it of the affect—the sum of excitation—with which itis loade d...[ s ot h a t ]t h es u mo fe x citation which has been detached from it must be put to another use” (1894a, pp. 48–49). He described “three mechanisms” of such a de-tachment of sums of excitation: “[1] transformation of affect (conversion hysteria), [2]displacement of affect (obsessions) and (3) exchange of affect (anxiety neurosis andmelancholia)” (Freud, 1887–1904, letter of May 21, 1894, S.E. 1, p. 188). He was able to formulate his energy hypothesis without any recourse to topographical localizationin brain structures or nerve cells. This Freud will attempt to do in another work, theposthumous Project. FREUD’S PROJECT OF PSYCHOLOGY It was in the fall of 1895, as if continuing the ideas of Breuer and Exner, that Freud composed a draft he himself alluded to as “Project of Psychology” (Entwurf der Psy- chologie) and characterized it as “a psychology for neurologists,” which in his day meant not only physicians practicing neurology but neuroscientists as well. The first toname it A Project of a Psychology (Entwurf einer Psychologie), changing Freud’s def- inite article to an indefinite one, were the editors and publisher of the draft in 1950(Freud, 1950a); the second to change Freud’s name was James Strachey, the chief trans-lator of the Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (henceforth abbreviated as S.E., ), who gave it the title of Project for a Scientific Psy- chology (Freud, 1950). Strachey’s renaming harbors a hidden bias: to promote Freud the scientist over Freud the philosopher, to represent Freud’s materialistic discourseabout mind as more valid than Freud’s psychological discourse about mind. This trendhas been revived nowadays in some quarters.

Freud's Materialistic Ambition

  • James Strachey's title 'Project for a Scientific Psychology' reflects a bias toward framing Freud as a scientist rather than a philosopher.
  • Freud's attempt to synthesize neurology and psychology was largely motivated by a desire to impress his skeptical friend Wilhelm Fliess.
  • The 'Project' was structured to deduce psychic events from basic hypotheses, pathological analysis, and the study of normal mental passages.
  • Freud adopted a mechanistic, atomistic view of the mind during this period, which stood in stark contrast to his earlier philosophical influences like Kant.
  • Despite his intense preoccupation with 'Psychology for Neurologists,' Freud struggled with the difficulty of introducing quantitative economics into mental theory.
My tyrant is psychology; it has always been my distant, beckoning goal, and now, since I have hit on the neuroses, it has come much closer.
mes Strachey, the chief trans-lator of the Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (henceforth abbreviated as S.E., ), who gave it the title of Project for a Scientific Psy- chology (Freud, 1950). Strachey’s renaming harbors a hidden bias: to promote Freud the scientist over Freud the philosopher, to represent Freud’s materialistic discourseabout mind as more valid than Freud’s psychological discourse about mind. This trendhas been revived nowadays in some quarters. But the scientific yield of the Project is more an ambition of Strachey’s than an achievement of Freud’s. Freud planned the draft in three parts. [A] The first part of this project contain[s] what could be deduced from the basic hypotheses, more or less a priori, molded and corrected in accordance with vari- ous factual experiences. [B] [The] second part seeks to infer from the analysis ofpathological processes some further determinants of the system founded on thebasic hypotheses; [C] a third part will hope to construct from the two precedingones the characteristics of the normal passage of psychic events. (Freud, 1950,p. 347) Why did Freud regress from mind to brain and what motive did he have in doing so? I believe I found the answer in the unexpurgated letters of Freud to Wilhelm Fliess, theANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 48 Berlin ear, nose and throat specialist and surgeon and author of books on speculative biology. With this synthesis of neurology and psychology Freud, I submit, wanted tomake his new psychology palatable to Fliess, sometime critic and proxy analyst, whoby dint of his medical background was philosophically committed to a materialisticconception of psychology. At this time in his life Freud has completed the Studies and is detaching his emotions from his former medical friend, Breuer, 14 years his senior (Jones, 1953, p. 255), and at-taching them to his new dearest friend Wilhelm, two years his junior, who is not com-mitted to psychotherapy and is therefore apt to be more skeptical and critical of Freud’sdynamic ideas than was Breuer. While Fliess’s letters to Freud did not survive, certainstatements in Freud’s letters suggest that Fliess could hit hard, as when Freud says inreply: “With an unerring hand you have raised the question at the point which I feel is theweak one” (Freud, 1887–1904, S.E. 1, p. 189). Freud was clearly eager to please Fliess. An ingratiating attitude toward Fliess is suggested by Freud’s praising Fliess for pointing him in the directiosn of Hippolyte Taine’s famous book of 1870, L’Intelligence (Freud, 1950a, p. 168), a work inspired by a theory of mind that was atomistic, mech-anistically determinist, and opposed to any idea of introspection or such notions as per- sonor self(regarded as nothing but a series of mental events), and such functions as memory or judgment, in short, a psychology that could not have been more drasticallydifferent from that of philosophers like Brentano or Kant, both models for Freud, andagainst Freud’s own dynamic way of thinking. A month after writing the concluding chapter of the Studies on Hysteria, according to Sulloway (1979, p. 113–114), Freud writes to Fliess: “I am so deep in the ‘Psychol-ogy for Neurologists’ that it quite consumes me, until I have to break off out of sheerexhaustion. I have never been so intensely preoccupied by anything. And will anythingcome of it? I hope so, but the going is hard and slow.” Who were the other neurologistsFreud was addressing? In May Freud explains his goal to Fliess as follows: “My tyrant is psychology; it has always been my distant, beckoning goal, and now, since I have hit on the neuroses ,...I a m p l a gued with two ambitions: to see how the theory of mental functioning takes shape if quantitative considerations,a sort of economics of nerve-force, are introduced into it; and secondly, to extractfrom psychopathology what may be of benefit to normal psychology.” (Sulloway,1979, p.

Freud's Scientific Torture

  • Freud initially aimed to create a 'natural science' psychology by representing mental processes as quantitative states of material particles or neurons.
  • The development of his 'Project for a Scientific Psychology' was marked by extreme emotional volatility, ranging from pride and happiness to shame and misery.
  • Despite his mechanistic ambitions, Freud eventually abandoned the Project, labeling it an absurdity and a 'philosophical stammer.'
  • A suppressed letter reveals Freud's secret hope to bypass medicine and physiology to reach his ultimate original goal: philosophy.
I had to rework a number of drafts and alternated between pride and happiness and shame and misery, and at the end of enormous mental torture I tell myself with apathy: it does not work, maybe it will never come together.
eurologistsFreud was addressing? In May Freud explains his goal to Fliess as follows: “My tyrant is psychology; it has always been my distant, beckoning goal, and now, since I have hit on the neuroses ,...I a m p l a gued with two ambitions: to see how the theory of mental functioning takes shape if quantitative considerations,a sort of economics of nerve-force, are introduced into it; and secondly, to extractfrom psychopathology what may be of benefit to normal psychology.” (Sulloway,1979, p. 114) The first ambition is quite new; and the second ambition was shaped by Freud’s hav- ing been a student of hysteria and hypnosis as taught by Charcot, Bernheim, and manyothers. In early September Freud went to Berlin to seek Fliess’s advice on a number of problems in the Project and his encouragement to proceed. In mid September of 1895, busy writing, Freud still deprecates his Project for a scientific psychology as a provi- sional “scribble” (Freud, 1887–1904, letter 73; henceforth, letters indicated by numberonly are from the complete original German edition; the translations are mine) uponwhich he conveyed thanks to his friend for his strong encouragement to “treat the mat-ter seriously” (letter 74). After a while he despairs over the effort to combine his “the-oretical fantasy” with the “psychopathology of repression”: “I had to rework a num-ber of drafts and alternated between pride and happiness and shame and misery, andat the end of enormous mental torture I tell myself with apathy: it does not work,maybe it will never come together .... The mechanistic explanation is not successful” (letter 75). In response to Fliess’s “punishing lines” he still ventures to send him “a fewmore pages of my philosophical stammer” (letter 77). A month later, after an encour-aging letter from Fliess, he is elated: “the thing took off like a machine and from hereLOTHANE: FROM MIND TO BRAIN 49 on will continue on its own,” listing a string of ideas whose validity he regards as proven (letter 78). But in early November the Project is put away in a drawer and by the end of the month Freud writes: “I can no longer understand the state of mind in whichI hatched the [project of] psychology and cannot fathom how I could have burdenedyou with it. I believe you have been too courteous, I now see it as a kind of absurdity”(letter 82). Freud’s remark in a part of the first letter to Fliess of 1896, suppressed by Strachey (Freud, 1950, p. 388) but not by Kris (Freud, 1950a, p. 152), tells it all: “I can see howyou, bypassing being a physician, reach your erstwhile ideal of understanding man asa physiologist; and how I nourish a most secret hope to go the same way in order toreach my original goal, philosophy” (letter 85). This is what I have set out to prove. Inthat letter the hapless draft is mentioned for the last time. Was Freud’s self-deprecationjustified? To answer this question let us survey the tripartite yield of the Project. A: PART I—GENERAL SCHEME (THE BASIC HYPOTHESES) In the opening paragraph of Part I of the Project Freud states his intention: . . . to furnish a psychology that shall be a natural science; that is, to represent psy- chical processes as quantitatively determinate states of specifiable material parti-cles, thus making the processes perspicuous [palpable, anschaulich, Z. L.] and freefrom contradiction. Two principal ideas are involved: (1) What distinguishes ac-tivity from rest is to be regarded as a quantity Q subject to the general laws ofmotion. (2) The neurones are to be taken as the material particles. (Freud, 1950,S.E. 1, p. 295; 1950a, pp. 379–380) The problems with this enterprise become immediately perspicuous, and it is not free from internal contradictions.

Freud's Neuronal Brain Mythology

  • Freud attempted to ground psychology in natural science by defining mental activity as a quantity of energy (Q) moving through material particles called neurones.
  • Critics argue that Freud's model was speculative and ignored established 19th-century discoveries regarding the electrical and chemical nature of neuronal transmission.
  • The text suggests Freud confused the quantitative with the empirical, falsely implying that only measurable physical quantities qualify as scientific data.
  • Freud's 'principle of neuronal inertia' posits that neurons naturally seek to divest themselves of energy, a concept derived from clinical observations of hysteria.
  • The enterprise is ultimately labeled as 'brain mythology' for anthropomorphizing physiological structures with psychological processes to explain mental phenomena.
But transforming gross quantitative characteristics of pathological excitement, a commonsense observation, into neuronal excitations, or psychopathology into putative physiology, is nothing more than another method of brain mythology.
ecifiable material parti-cles, thus making the processes perspicuous [palpable, anschaulich, Z. L.] and freefrom contradiction. Two principal ideas are involved: (1) What distinguishes ac-tivity from rest is to be regarded as a quantity Q subject to the general laws ofmotion. (2) The neurones are to be taken as the material particles. (Freud, 1950,S.E. 1, p. 295; 1950a, pp. 379–380) The problems with this enterprise become immediately perspicuous, and it is not free from internal contradictions. To begin with, if natural science means, on Freud’s ownshowing, not only matter and quantity, but also, as implied, measurement, then in theentire Project there is no mention of any experiments to quantify the energy denoted by the letter Q, and both the nature of this energy and its quantities remain purely spec-ulative. Thus, neurons do contain material particles, however those may be defined, butare not themselves particles of any kind, but highly organized cells for specific physio-logical processes, and the energy in neuronal transmission is either electrical or chem-ical, facts that had already been described by Ernst BrĂŒcke in 1876, Émil du Bois-Reymond in 1877, and Ewald Hering in 1878, but there is no mention of them here(Amacher, 1965; Boring, 1942; Brooks & Cranefield, 1959; Herrnstein & Boring, 1965;Wellcome Foundation, 1958). The notion of general laws of motion may hold good for the physics of Galileo and Newton, but is insufficient to explain the electrical and chemical events in neurons and synapses, as we have come to know them since(Kandel, Schwartz & Jessell, 1991; Eccles, 1994). Moreover, the program as outlined contradicts the psychological principle of dis- pensing with brain discourse enunciated by Breuer in the aforequoted passage from theStudies. Besides, is not a psychology that deals with ideas and emotions just as much a “natural science” as an artificial psychology of fictitious quantities and particles? DoesFreud mean to say that the ideas, images, and emotions described and explained in theStudies and in the Interpretation of Dreams are not natural phenomena? But this is to confuse the quantitative with the empirical. For the findings of laboratory psychologyand of Freud’s own psychoanalytic psychology are certainly empirical and amenable toempirical validation, and as such qualify to be considered scientific. We also considerempirical findings in the social sciences, even though they are not quantitative sciencesin the same way as physics and chemistry or descriptive sciences as geology or zoology.ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 50 Immediately after the aforementioned opener, the “ First Principal Theorem: The Quantitative Conception ,” avers Freud is derived from pathological clinical observation especially where excessively in- tense ideas were concerned—in hysteria and obsessions, in which . . . the quanti- tative characteristic emerges more plainly than in the normal. Processes such asstimulus, substitution, conversion and discharge ,...d i r ectly suggested the con- ception of neuronal excitation as a quantity in a state of flow . . . It seemed legiti- mate to attempt to generalize what was recognized there. Starting from this con-sideration, it was possible to lay down a basic principle of neuronal activity inrelation to Q, which promised to be highly enlightening, since it appeared to com-prise the entire function. This is the principle of neuronal inertia: that neurons tend to divest themselves of Q. (Freud, 1950, pp. 295–296; emphasis added) But transforming gross quantitative characteristics of pathological excitement, a com- monsense observation, into neuronal excitations, or psychopathology into putativephysiology, is nothing more than another method of brain mythology: anthropomor-phizing and psychologizing brain structures or functions by inserting into them “psy-chological processes constructed by psychologists to explain psychological phenomena”(Anderson, 1962, p. 11).

Freud's Hydraulic Brain Mythology

  • The author critiques Freud's attempt to transform psychological observations into physiological ones as a form of 'brain mythology' that anthropomorphizes neural structures.
  • Freud's concept of 'Quantity Q' represents a hydraulic hypothesis where neurons act like pipes filling with or emptying of fluid-like energy.
  • Scientific evidence regarding the histological, electrical, and chemical functioning of nerve cells does not support the idea of neurons divesting themselves of energy in this manner.
  • The energy metaphor was particularly applied to 'actual neuroses' like anxiety, which Freud viewed as a purely physical accumulation of somatic sexual excitation.
  • While the hydraulic model lacks physiological proof, it serves as a powerful metaphor for the 'strangulated affect' and cathartic discharge observed in clinical practice.
Such a hydraulic hypothesis is supported neither by the histological structure of nerve cells and fibers, nor by their electrical or chemical functioning as resting, action, or injury potentials.
emselves of Q. (Freud, 1950, pp. 295–296; emphasis added) But transforming gross quantitative characteristics of pathological excitement, a com- monsense observation, into neuronal excitations, or psychopathology into putativephysiology, is nothing more than another method of brain mythology: anthropomor-phizing and psychologizing brain structures or functions by inserting into them “psy-chological processes constructed by psychologists to explain psychological phenomena”(Anderson, 1962, p. 11). What is the advantage in this new neuronal discourse as com-pared with the quantitative characterizations in the aforementioned essay on neu-ropsychoses of defense? Four issues are raised in this passage: (1)the neural basis of strong feelings and emotions in health and disease; (2)neuronal excitation equated with a hypothetical quantity of energy in a state of flow; (3)the issue of neuronal inertia; and (4)the dual, neuronal and psychical, phenomenology of stimulus, substitution, conversion, anddischarge. Let us survey these briefly. (1)We have seen Breuer translate psychopathological heightened emotionality, here “excessively intense ideas,” into neurological terms, in the end admitting the exis-tence of ideogenic affect, without ever hypothesizing “a quantity Q.” Neither did Breuerattempt any localization of function in the brain. (2)Freud wants to generalize Q as the universal property of neurons, but such a quantity, even though it feels intuitively right—there are metabolic processes in thecells—has not been demonstrated by any precise physiological method, nor the as-sumed tendency of neurons to divest themselves of such Q. While it is true that the ner-vous system functions to rid the organism of painful stimulation, this does not entailthe neurons, like pipes, filling up with or being emptied of a fluid-like energy Q flow-ing in them: Such a hydraulic hypothesis is supported neither by the histological struc-ture of nerve cells and fibers, nor by their electrical or chemical functioning as resting,action, or injury potentials, nor by the events in the synapse, nor by the transducingprocesses in sensory receptors. The analogy of filling up and emptying seems, however,to fit the main premise and inference in Breuer’s and Freud’s description of emotiveprocesses in neurosis and metaphorically to depict the cathartic abreaction of stran-gulated affect accompanying the remembering of traumatic situations. Strangulated af-fect easily suggests something pent-up and pressing for discharge. Before the Project the energy metaphor was better employed by Freud in Draft E (Freud, 1887–1904, S.E. 1, pp. 189–195) and in a subsequent paper (1895b), in which he described a group of functional nervous disorders classed as actual, or present-dayneuroses, chiefly neurasthenia, hypochondria, and the newly delineated anxiety neu-rosis, to be differentiated from psychoneuroses (that is, disorders that stemmed from in-fantile traumatic disturbances of sexuality). The anxiety neurosis was defined as apurely physical disorder, and its “nuclear symptom” as “ a quantum of anxiety in a freely floating state ” (1895b, p. 93; emphasis Freud’s) due to “accumulated somatic ex-LOTHANE: FROM MIND TO BRAIN 51 citation of a sexual nature” (1895b, p. 107), and caused by current sexual frustrations or inhibitions, not by past problems. Using the male as a model, but applicable to thefemale as well, Freud described this state as follows: In the sexually mature male or-ganism somatic sexual excitation . . . [is] manifested as the pressure on the walls of the seminal vesicles, which are lined with nerve endings ;...i t will have to reach a certain height before . . . [its] conduction to the cerebral cortex and express itself as a psychical stimulus.

Freud's Hydraulic Libido Model

  • Freud conceptualized sexual tension as a physical pressure on nerve endings that must reach a specific threshold before being perceived by the cerebral cortex.
  • The 'hydraulic metaphor' describes the psyche as a system that fills with libidinal energy (cathexis) and requires a specific action to achieve discharge or unloading.
  • Anxiety neurosis is framed as a physical consequence of unsatisfied sexual hunger, resulting in a state of unpleasant tension and functional disorders.
  • The hypothesis of neuronal inertia suggests the nervous system seeks to remain free of stimuli, yet is forced to abandon this trend to address internal biological needs like hunger and sex.
  • While the theory of energy flow and discharge is described as 'breathtakingly grand,' it is ultimately categorized as metaphysical rather than clinical.
The state of being loaded is also called by Freud besetzt, better known by the Greek neologism invented by Strachey, cathected, from cathexis, meaning 'occupation' or 'filling'.
and caused by current sexual frustrations or inhibitions, not by past problems. Using the male as a model, but applicable to thefemale as well, Freud described this state as follows: In the sexually mature male or-ganism somatic sexual excitation . . . [is] manifested as the pressure on the walls of the seminal vesicles, which are lined with nerve endings ;...i t will have to reach a certain height before . . . [its] conduction to the cerebral cortex and express itself as a psychical stimulus. Whenthis has happened, however, the group of sexual ideas which is present in the psy-che becomes supplied with energy, and there comes into being the psychical stateof libidinal tension which brings with it an urge to remove that tension. A psy-chical unloading of this kind is only possible by means of what I shall call the spe- cific or adequate action, . . . [i.e.,] a complicated spinal reflex act which brings about the unloading of the nerve-endings, and in all the psychical preparationswhich have to be made in order to set off that reflex. (Freud, 1895b, p. 108; em-phasis Freud’s) It emerges, however, that anxiety neurosis is only physical with respect to its causation, a case of unsatisfied sexual hunger and its physical sequelae (free-floating anxiety withsomatization), but it has psychic consequences: a state of unpleasant tension. There isnothing jarring in the picture of a quantum of energy freely floating from one systemto another, causing a variety of functional disorders and psychological distress, nor inthe idea of unloading of all that accumulated libido, whatever its physicochemical na-ture, leading to postorgasmic quietus. The state of being loaded is also called by Freudbesetzt, better known by the Greek neologism invented by Strachey, cathected, from cathexis, meaning “ ‘occupation’ or ‘filling’ ” (Strachey’s footnote, S.E. 3, p. 63), a term with which, on Strachey’s own showing, Freud was initially unhappy; but he could notresist the metaphor of filling up and emptying. The hydraulic metaphor will come in for yet another use in connection with another hypothetical sort of energy, the energy of the sexual drives, or libido, the central focusofThree Essays on the Theory of Sexuality. Here, too, one can see how the actual ejac- ulation of sexual products in the male orgasm readily fits the image contained in themetaphor of filling up and discharging accumulated “quantities” of libido. Themetaphor also seems to hold good for representing the idea of the tension–de-tensionmodel of drives, the accumulation of sexual tension and its release in the orgasm reflex,in both the male and the female, even though there is no emptying of sexual “products”in the latter. (3)The hypothesis of neuronal inertia, elevated by Strachey to a mechanistic uni- versal principle he called “principle of constancy,” foreshadows Freud’s late-life musingson the death instinct and the principle of Nirvana. In the meantime the inertia theory pre-sents some contradictions. Freud depicts Q as flowing into the nervous system from ex-ogenous (that is, perceptual) and endogenous sources. The latter “have their origin in thecells of the body and give rise to the major needs: hunger, respiration, sexuality” (Freud,1950, p. 297). But in the same breath Freud becomes aware of an insoluble contradiction: From these the organism cannot withdraw as it does from external stimuli . . . They only cease subject to particular conditions, which must be realized in the externalw o r l d ,... [i.e., by means of] an action (which deserves to be called “specific”) . . . In consequence, the nervous system is obliged to abandon its original trend to in-ertia ...( F r eud, S.E. 1, p. 297) So much for grand generalizations. The inertia theory is breathtakingly grand, but is metaphysical, not clinical, nonethe- less, as his conception of the neuronal systems announced in the above quoted open-ing paragraph of the Project, to be discussed presently.

Freud's Speculative Neuronal Systems

  • The text critiques Freud's 'Project' as a metaphysical rather than clinical endeavor, characterized by grand generalizations about nervous system inertia.
  • Freud proposed a speculative neuroanatomy involving the Phi, Psi, and Omega systems to distinguish between transient sensation and the retention of thought.
  • While Freud attempted to map these systems onto the gray matter of the spinal cord and brain, the author argues this was more 'pious talk' than empirical testing.
  • Freud's physiological psychology blended traditional neurophysiology of his era with his own highly speculative theories on 'contact-barriers' and 'facilitating pathways'.
  • The acquisition of experience is described through the reflex arc, where excitation-conducting paths are formed between cortical elements to create the material substrate of memory.
The rest is pious talk, for there is no testing here but only theorizing: Freud’s neuronal theories—a psychology for neurologists.
be realized in the externalw o r l d ,... [i.e., by means of] an action (which deserves to be called “specific”) . . . In consequence, the nervous system is obliged to abandon its original trend to in-ertia ...( F r eud, S.E. 1, p. 297) So much for grand generalizations. The inertia theory is breathtakingly grand, but is metaphysical, not clinical, nonethe- less, as his conception of the neuronal systems announced in the above quoted open-ing paragraph of the Project, to be discussed presently.ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 52 (4)No less speculative than the putative physiology of Q is Freud’s neuroanatomy, or the systems of neurons Freud designated by the Greek letters phi, psi, and omega,or as he collectively called them, the system “PhiPsiOmega,” where psi roughly refer topsyche, or processes of thought and retention of thought, while phi and omega referto transient processes of sensation and perception. The psi cells were thought to be im-permeable and the others permeable to passage of energy. Freud is at pains to admit allthis is “conjecture,” that we should not have invented the two [classes], phi and psi, we should have found them already in existence. It still remains to identify them with something knownto us. In fact we know from anatomy a system of neurones (the grey matter of thespinal cord) which is alone in contact with the external world, and a superim-posed system (the grey matter of the brain) which has no peripheral connectionsbut to which the development of the nervous system and the psychical functionsare attached ....H e r e i s a first possibility of testing our theory upon factual ma- terial (Freud, 1950, p. 303). Are these neuronal systems discovery or invention? The last statement is also imprecise: the gray matter of the brain isconnected to the outside world through the synaptic re- lays from the periphery to the center. The rest is pious talk, for there is no testing herebut only theorizing: Freud’s neuronal theories—a psychology for neurologists. Freud’s physiological psychology comes in two varieties: (a)one grounded in the traditional neurophysiology of the day and (b)his own speculative system elaborated only in the Project. Freud invokes neural structures (nerve-cells, axis-cylinders, contact- barriers) and physiological processes (stimuli exogenous and endogenous, currents, dis-charges, and facilitating pathways, or Bahnen ) to explain psychological activity, all these well within the pale of the neuroscience of the day, to which Freud had made hisown respectable contributions (Freud, 1886b, 1888, 1891b). It should also be realizedthat prior to the Project, sensory physiology and cognitive psychology had already been established fields, the former as a branch of neurophysiology, the latter as exper-imental psychology. In line with conventional wisdom (for example, that imparted byhis teacher Meynert), Freud sees sensation, perception, memory, and the acquisition ofexperience and knowledge as mediated by the reflex arc that connects the externalworld with the cerebral cortex: When different sensory cortical elements are excited from their respective periph- eral sense organs ,...e x citation-conducting paths [ Bahnen ] are developed be- tween these cortical elements, so that subsequently the excitation of one of thesecortical elements is connected with the excitation of the other ....T h e sphere of experiences appropriate to [the associative perception of an object]—the idea ofthe needs satisfied through the object and the movements which would bringabout their satisfaction—also appear in consciousness. A fundamental part ofthe material substrate of memory and for the expedient employment of an objectconsists of Bahnen which are formed through experience within the same and be- tween different cortical areas, and which are called association fibers because theyserve the association of ideas (Freud, 1888, p. 692, quoted in Amacher, 1965,p.

Freud's Speculative Neuropsychology

  • Freud attempted to bridge psychology and natural science by proposing a mechanistic model of neurons to explain mental processes.
  • He hypothesized a distinction between permeable 'phi' neurons for perception and impermeable 'psi' neurons for permanent memory storage.
  • The text notes that Freud's physiological models were largely fictitious and lacked histological evidence even by the standards of his own time.
  • Freud struggled with the 'problem of quality,' acknowledging that consciousness remains unaware of the underlying neural quantities and structures.
  • The author argues that Freud's attempt to create a mechanistic construction ultimately detracted from his more valuable dynamic psychological ideas.
This is indeed solid fact—we are not conscious of our brain as such, only of our mind in action—and therefore the brain–mind juncture is the mother of all questions.
tion of an object]—the idea ofthe needs satisfied through the object and the movements which would bringabout their satisfaction—also appear in consciousness. A fundamental part ofthe material substrate of memory and for the expedient employment of an objectconsists of Bahnen which are formed through experience within the same and be- tween different cortical areas, and which are called association fibers because theyserve the association of ideas (Freud, 1888, p. 692, quoted in Amacher, 1965,p. 59) However, Freud’s descriptions of the phi-psi-omega neurons bear little resemblance to the known neurophysiological models of his day or since (Exner, 1894; Kandel,Schwartz & Jessell, 1991). Freud freely mixes fictitious neural systems and psycholog-ical processes to fulfill the promise of a psychology as a natural science, but he ends ina mechanistic construction that detracts from his dynamic ideas. No wonder that dur-ing his lifetime Freud chose to keep the manuscript in a drawer. As one example, consider Freud’s way with the problem of memory. While, sinceLOTHANE: FROM MIND TO BRAIN 53 Freud’s time, neuroscientists have gained considerable understanding of the neural basis of visual and auditory perception, the neural basis of memory is still in its be-ginnings. Here is what Freud proposes: “A psychological theory deserving any consid- eration must furnish an explanation of memory” (Freud, 1950, p. 299; emphasis added).But what he offers is a physiological hypothesis to account for (1) “perceptual cells,”which act as receptors of successive ways of stimulations and have to be wiped cleanof impressions to receive new stimuli and (2) “memory cells,” which can remain per-manently altered since their job is to store memories. Accordingly, his new theory re-quires that perception should be mediated by permeable phi neurons that allow forquick passage of intracellular energy quanta (Q eta), while memory is mediated by im-permeable psi neurons, “loaded with resistance and holding back Q eta,” being “vehi-cles of memory and so probably of psychical processes in general” ( S.E. 1, p. 300). That such processes of perception and memory exist is common knowledge, but how the brain does it is still a mystery. And yet no less a mystery is why Freud felt so compelledto create physiological hypotheses to explain these processes. Freud does not hide his own uneasiness about the highly speculative status of phi and psi: “Anyone ...w h o i s e n g a ged scientifically in the construction of hypotheses will only begin to take them seriously if they can be fitted into our knowledge from morethan one direction and if the arbitrariness of a construction ad hoc can be mitigated in relation to them ....A t all events, morphologically (that is histologically) nothing is known in support of the distinction [of phi and psi]” ( S.E. 1, p. 302). If all this is true, “we should not have invented the two phi and psi, we should have found them already in existence.” Voltaire said the same about God: We are still looking. As to “the prob-lem of quantity,” Freud’s own conclusion is: “here there is a lack of evidence” ( S.E. 1, p. 305), with which I cannot disagree. Even greater problems are encountered when considering “the problem of quality” and the problem of consciousness. Freud acutely states the core problem as follows:“every psychological theor y...f r o mt h e point of view of natural science must fulfill yet another requirement. It should explain what we are aware of, in the most puzzlingfashion, through our “consciousness,” since this consciousness knows nothing of whatwe have so far been assuming—quantities and neurones” ( S.E. 1, pp. 307–308). This is indeed solid fact—we are not conscious of our brain as such, only of our mind inaction—and therefore the brain–mind juncture is the mother of all questions that hasvexed philosophers down the ages and to which neuroscience has yet found no answer.

The Brain-Mind Juncture

  • Freud grapples with the fundamental disconnect between the physical brain—composed of neurons and quantities—and the subjective experience of consciousness.
  • The text highlights how neuroscience often reverts to the language of philosophy and Gestalt psychology to explain how the mind actively creates a holistic reality.
  • Freud rejects the idea that qualities like color or scent exist in the external world, viewing them instead as internal constructs of the nervous system.
  • To solve the problem of how perception differs from memory, Freud proposes a third system of 'omega' neurons specifically dedicated to conscious sensation.
  • The author critiques Freud's theoretical leap, questioning how such specific neuronal functions could ever be verified or known.
This is indeed solid fact—we are not conscious of our brain as such, only of our mind in action—and therefore the brain–mind juncture is the mother of all questions that has vexed philosophers down the ages.
t another requirement. It should explain what we are aware of, in the most puzzlingfashion, through our “consciousness,” since this consciousness knows nothing of whatwe have so far been assuming—quantities and neurones” ( S.E. 1, pp. 307–308). This is indeed solid fact—we are not conscious of our brain as such, only of our mind inaction—and therefore the brain–mind juncture is the mother of all questions that hasvexed philosophers down the ages and to which neuroscience has yet found no answer.For after all is said about energies stimulating receptors, transduction and conductionof action potentials, first and second messenger cascades, ion channels, and encodingand decoding of stimuli in the nervous system, the neuroscientist ends by speaking inthe language of psychology and philosophy and tells us that visual perception is not“a simple process of assembling elementary sensations in an additive way, componentby component, [as represented] b y...J o h n Locke and George Berkeley ,...n o ta tom- istic but holistic [and] is an active and creative process [as represented by] the schoolofGestalt psychology ” (Kandel, Schwartz & Jessell, 1991, p. 441; emphasis in the orig- inal). Indeed, Gestalt psychology vindicated Emmanuel Kant, who argued against thetwo above named British precursors and a third, David Hume, that such creativenessfor the mind, a sum much greater than its parts, is based on the mind’s ability, for in-stance, to innately, or a priori, to perceive space and time. At the time of the Project Freud could not have known what the Gestaltists would be saying around 1910, but heknew Kant. “Where do qualities originate?” asks Freud, and he answers: “Not in the external world. For out there, according to the view of our natural science, to which psychol-ogy must be subjected here, there are only masses in motion and nothing else” ( S.E. 1, p. 308). Masses in motion along with the denial of the existence of qualities is an ab-ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 54 stract idea formulated by Galileo in the seventeenth century, valid as proof of his physics, but contradicted by commonsense experience: The world out there isfull of colors, scents, sounds, and tastes, and it matters little whether we become aware of it,thanks to the special fit of energies and receptors or what mind adds to matter: the ex-perience of qualities is real, the obfuscations of philosophers notwithstanding. In answering his question about qualities, Freud is tripped up by his own theorizing: “Where do qualities originate? . . . In the phi system perhaps?” But that is doubtful. “In the psi system then,” but the latter, dealing with “reproducing and remembering, andthis, speaking generally, is without quality. Remembering brings about de norma [nor- mally] nothing that has the peculiar quality of perceptual quality” ( S.E. 1, pp. 308–309). The last statement is erroneous: As a distinct function, memory is not perception, butit can most certainly span the range from remembrances pallid to most vivid; quiteoften it can retain and revive all the aliveness of past perception, or as Freud would latersay, establish an identity of perception and sometimes with the “ultra-clarity” of hal-lucinations (Freud, S.E. 23, p. 266). Freud’s way out of the dilemma is to invent another fictitious entity, a “third system of neurones” ( S.E. 1, p. 309), the omega or perceptual neurons, the lower case omega, as Freud bemusedly explains, having the same shape asthe lower case German letter wfor Wahrnehmung, perception. These perceptual neurons of the third kind are miraculously “excited along with perception, but not along withreproduction, and whose states of excitation give rise to various qualities—are, that isto say, conscious sensations ”(S.E. 1, p. 309; emphasis Freud’s). How does he know about such neuronal separations of functions? How can anyone know?

Freud's Grand Neuronal Fantasia

  • Freud attempts to categorize mental functions into specific neuronal systems labeled Phi, Psi, and Omega, but struggles to explain how physical quantity becomes conscious quality.
  • The Omega neurons are described as a sieve that allows for conscious sensation without leaving durable traces, a theory the author argues is contradicted by our ability to remember sensory experiences.
  • The text highlights a fundamental failure in Freud's mechanistic approach, as he admits he cannot explain how excitatory processes actually generate consciousness.
  • By reducing the 'I' or 'Ego' to a complex organization of cathexes and smart particles, Freud loses sight of the unified person or 'fellow human-being' behind the functions.
  • The author concludes that Freud's speculative physiology is a 'neuronal fantasia' that ultimately leads to a dead end by trying to explain mind through brain rather than mind through mind.
Clearly, in this plethora of parts, sight has been lost of the person, the “ fellow human-being ”, the one doing the perceiving, thinking and remembering, dreaming and hallucinating, wishing and willing, let alone attending and judging, the conductor of this orchestra of these all-knowing homunculi.
erceptual neurons, the lower case omega, as Freud bemusedly explains, having the same shape asthe lower case German letter wfor Wahrnehmung, perception. These perceptual neurons of the third kind are miraculously “excited along with perception, but not along withreproduction, and whose states of excitation give rise to various qualities—are, that isto say, conscious sensations ”(S.E. 1, p. 309; emphasis Freud’s). How does he know about such neuronal separations of functions? How can anyone know? But now a new contradiction arises: The sense organs act not only as Q-screens, like all nerve-ending apparatuses, but also as sieves; for they allow the stimulus through from only certain processes . . .and it is these modifications which proceed through phi via psi to omega, andthere, where they are almost devoid of quantity, generate conscious sensations ofqualities. This transmission of quality is not durable; it leaves no traces behind andcannot be reproduced ( S.E. 1, p. 310) The sieve is a good metaphor for sensory receptors, but then we are left with this curi- ous conundrum: Omega neurons, operating without quantity, give us a conscious sen-sation of quality that cannot be reproduced, which is belied by the fact that we can re-member scents, tastes and colors; while the other systems, Phi and Psi, operate withquantities, but do not produce conscious sensations. This just does not add up. Freuddemolishes his own theory in these words: “No attempt, or course, can be made to ex-plain how it is that excitatory processes in the Omega neurones bring consciousnessalong with them” (S.E. 1, p. 311): That much is granted, for all mechanistic theories ofconsciousness leave us in the lurch. Indeed, we are presented with a pleonastic paradigmof the personalized particle and the depersonalized person, with a plethora of sys-tems, symbols, and sketches ( S.E. 1, pp. 314, 324). Now the most common German synonym for person is the first-person pronoun ich or I,whereas in English the most common such synonym is self. In German das Ich is not the person, but the philosophical abstraction of the person’s individuality and is oc-casionally used as a synonym for person. This is clearly known to Freud the pragma-tist. But when, in his “introduction of the ‘Ego’ ” ( S.E. 1, p. 322), he dons the hat of the neuroscientist, das Ich naturally becomes “an organization formed in the psi . . . [and] defined as the totality of psi cathexes, at the given time, in which a permanent compo-nent is distinguished from a changing one” (S.E. 1, p. 323). However, the psi neuronsare also joined by omega neurons (the role of phi neurons temporarily postponed), andother neurons symbolized by a, b, and c, and converted into smart particles capable ofperforming such complex functions as “indication of reality,” “indication of quality,”LOTHANE: FROM MIND TO BRAIN 55 distinguishing perception from memory, judging, or providing a sensation of identity. Clearly, in this plethora of parts, sight has been lost of the person, the “ fellow human- being ”(S.E. 1, p. 331, emphasis Freud’s), the one doing the perceiving, thinking and re- membering, dreaming and hallucinating, wishing and willing, let alone attending andjudging, the conductor of this orchestra of these all-knowing homunculi. To sum up: Freud’s attempt to explain mind by brain, rather than sticking to his original project to explain mind by mind, has led him down a number of blind alleys.His speculative physiology of the nervous system could fairly be dubbed, borrowing afelicitous phrase from Eccles (1994), Freud’s grand neuronal fantasia: we can consignit to the museum of metabiology.

Freud's Grand Neuronal Fantasia

  • The author critiques Freud's attempt to explain the mind through speculative brain physiology, labeling it a 'grand neuronal fantasia' that belongs in a museum.
  • Freud's neurological theories were heavily influenced by the Helmholtz school of neurophysiology and the work of Ernst BrĂŒcke and Sigmund Exner.
  • The spinal reflex arc served as a foundational model for Freud, leading to a view of the brain as a 'superior ganglion' performing mechanical mental reflexes.
  • The text describes how traditional associationism and Meynert's theories of projection and association fibers provided the neural basis for Freud's concepts of intelligence and memory.
  • Meynert's schema of the plastic cortex included 'instincts' as fundamental forces, such as the sucking instinct in infants, which Freud later integrated into his own work.
His speculative physiology of the nervous system could fairly be dubbed, borrowing a felicitous phrase from Eccles (1994), Freud’s grand neuronal fantasia: we can consign it to the museum of metabiology.
d hallucinating, wishing and willing, let alone attending andjudging, the conductor of this orchestra of these all-knowing homunculi. To sum up: Freud’s attempt to explain mind by brain, rather than sticking to his original project to explain mind by mind, has led him down a number of blind alleys.His speculative physiology of the nervous system could fairly be dubbed, borrowing afelicitous phrase from Eccles (1994), Freud’s grand neuronal fantasia: we can consignit to the museum of metabiology. FREUD’S SOURCES OF INSPIRATION In his scholarly analysis of Freud’s early neurological theories, and especially those in the Project, Amacher (1965) traced not only the march of certain ideas in the history of brain anatomy and brain mythology, but he also showed how much Freud’s neuronaltheories owed to the Helmholtz school of neurophysiology. Freud was especially in-debted to the founding father of that school, Ernst BrĂŒcke, who followed in the foot-steps of the great German physiologist Johannes MĂŒller; to BrĂŒcke’s assistant Sig-mund Exner, whose Entwurf, or project for the physiological explanation of psychical phenomena (Exner, 1894) became an inspiration for Freud’s Entwurf; and to his other predecessors in brain anatomy, Meynert, Charcot, and Wernicke. Some of BrĂŒcke’s theories were based on the notion of the spinal reflex arc, first for- mulated by Descartes: to wit, that excitation of the end-organs produces stimuli or im-pulses that are transferred via afferent nerves to brain centers and from there to effer-ent nerves and effector organs. These reflex theories were utilized by Freud in hisdescriptions of neural conduction, summation, facilitation, and inhibition. Since thebrain centers are composed of gray matter, like the spinal and sympathetic ganglia ofthe spinal column, it was natural to view the brain as nothing but a more evolved or su-perior ganglion and to attribute to it the ability to perform such superordinate mentalreflexes as perception and thought: reflexes, not acts of a perceiving or thinking per- son. This reflex-based psychology found a faithful ally in traditional associationism, ac-cording to which mind is nothing but a mechanical combination, or association, ofideas derived from sensations. Associationism dated back to British and Frenchphilosophers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and culminated in Freud’stime in the psychologies of Mill and Taine. Such ideas were embraced by Freud’s otherimportant teacher, Theodor Meynert, author of an influential textbook of psychiatryand by Freud’s “rival” in Leipzig, the renowned brain anatomist and sometime psy-chiatrist, Paul Flechsig. In his neurophysiology Meynert followed MĂŒller and BrĂŒcke and located mind in the cortex of the cerebral hemispheres, functioning as a mega-ganglion made up of twointerconnected systems of cells and fibers: (1) projection systems, connecting sensoryorgans from the periphery to motor organs, and (2) association systems, connecting thevarious part of the brain and providing the neural basis of intelligence, where “associ-ation” suggested both connections between cells and combinations of associations (i.e.,ideas). According to Meynert’s schema, inflowing sensory impulses were transmittedfrom the periphery along projection fibers to terminate in the receptive and thence toassociation fibers. These fibers in turn opened the various areas in the cortex to furtherinterconnections in a process he called induction, or “the fundamental logical func-tion,” thus to become the source of images of perception and memory and the basis ofintelligence from childhood to adulthood. Among the elements in this ever-developingANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 56 plastic cortex were forces that Meynert called the instincts, such as the instinct for food as observed in the behavior of the sucking infant.

Neurological Roots of Psychoanalysis

  • Theodor Meynert proposed that cortical interconnections, or induction, form the basis of intelligence and the development of the primary ego from childhood instincts.
  • Sigmund Exner conceptualized neural transmission as a fluid-like flow or a summation of stimuli, ideas that Freud later adapted into his concept of cathexis.
  • Exner introduced the hypothesis of subcortical emotion centers, specifically identifying a pain or unpleasure center that integrates with sensory memory.
  • The text illustrates how Freud synthesized the theories of BrĂŒcke, Meynert, and Exner to explain the movement of neural excitation and the drive toward wish-fulfillment.
  • Early neurological models even attempted to explain the genesis of romantic love through the 'tonus' of sexual instinct centers and cortical excitation.
Exner was much concerned with transmission of nervous impulses “from one periphery to another much as a fluid moves through a system of pipes”
se fibers in turn opened the various areas in the cortex to furtherinterconnections in a process he called induction, or “the fundamental logical func-tion,” thus to become the source of images of perception and memory and the basis ofintelligence from childhood to adulthood. Among the elements in this ever-developingANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 56 plastic cortex were forces that Meynert called the instincts, such as the instinct for food as observed in the behavior of the sucking infant. Accordingly, such early childhood ex-periences as the infant sucking his fingers or the nipple, placed “between conscious andreflex movements” and providing pleasure and soothing pain, led to the developmentof a synthesis that Meynert called “the primary individuality,” interchangeably calledthe “primary ego” (das Ich) or the “nucleus of individuality” (Amacher, 1965, pp. 33–35), and from this the secondary adult ego evolved over time. We shall see howin Freud’s Project such ideas of Meynert were transformed into psychoanalytic con- cepts, both theoretical and methodological. Exner’s descriptions of neurological counterparts to psychological phenomena are characterized by Amacher as being midway between those of BrĂŒcke and Meynert.Exner was much concerned with transmission of nervous impulses “from one periph-ery to another much as a fluid moves through a system of pipes” (Amacher, 1965,p. 45), while in other places he saw neural transmission from neuron to neuron as a sum-mation of stimuli he called “intercellular tetanus”; Freud would later combine theseideas with his own notion of contact-barriers between neurons to fashion the notionof cathexis. In other respects Exner adopted Meynert’s idea of induction and of the funda- mental logical function occurring in the cortex to explain neurologically the phenom-enon of association of ideas. However, he added the hypothesis of subcortical “emo-tion centers,” such as the “pain center,” also referred to as the “unpleasure center”(Unlustcentrum). Impulses in the pain center, taught Exner, became integrated with stimuli coming in from sensory receptors and with memory images laid down in thecourse of previous experiences. Exner was also interested in instincts, defined by himas the “association between an idea and an emotion center” (Amacher, 1965, pp.51–52), among which he underscored the participation of ideas and stimuli in the sex-ual instincts, those determining sexual behavior. Here is an example of Exner’s ideasabout the genesis of heterosexual and homosexual love: In every normal young man the center for sexual instincts . . . [may show] an in- creased tonus .... The cortical excitation accompanying the sight [of a girl] causes the beginning of an intercellular tetanus between cortical processes and this cen-t e r .... “The young man is in love.” . . . It also can occur . . . that an association becomes developed with another idea, for example, that of a man. (Amacher,1965, p. 53) We can agree with the assessment of Amacher that in the Project and beyond Freud is working over the ideas of BrĂŒcke, Meynert, and Exner: Neural excitation flowing innerves as if in pipes, the result of which causes neurons to fill up with quantity, the di-vestment of which produces neuronal inertia. This inertia ensures the division of neu-rons into motor and sensory, and, in turn, leads to reflex motor movement, the purpose of which is to rid the organism of the excess of stimulation, converting unpleasure intopleasure. A central idea Freud took over from Meynert was the “experience of satisfaction,” or the drive toward wish-fulfillment (Amacher, 1965), an idea Freud also found in thewritings of the German psychiatrist, Griesinger.

The Experience of Satisfaction

  • Freud adapted the concept of the 'experience of satisfaction' from Meynert and Griesinger to explain the drive toward wish-fulfillment in dreams and neuroses.
  • The human organism seeks to convert unpleasure into pleasure through the discharge of stimulation, a process Freud initially modeled on neuronal inertia.
  • A hungry infant may attempt a 'pseudo-solution' through hallucinatory wish-fulfillment, but this inevitably fails to provide actual nourishment.
  • The infant's helplessness necessitates 'extraneous help,' transforming motor discharge like screaming into a secondary function of communication.
  • Freud argues that this primal state of human helplessness and the need for a dyadic relationship is the ultimate source of all moral motives.
The initial helplessness of human beings is the primal source of all moral motives.
ntity, the di-vestment of which produces neuronal inertia. This inertia ensures the division of neu-rons into motor and sensory, and, in turn, leads to reflex motor movement, the purpose of which is to rid the organism of the excess of stimulation, converting unpleasure intopleasure. A central idea Freud took over from Meynert was the “experience of satisfaction,” or the drive toward wish-fulfillment (Amacher, 1965), an idea Freud also found in thewritings of the German psychiatrist, Griesinger. Freud would place this concept at thecenter of the dynamics of dreaming, as described in the fabled seventh chapter (Freud,1900); of hallucinatory neuropsychosis of defense, also called Meynert’s amentia(Freud, 1894a); and of the conception of neurotic symptoms as a form of disguised sex-ual gratification. Meynert spoke of experiences of pleasure laying down new pathwaysin the cortex; Exner postulated a subcortical “pleasure [ Lust ] center”; and Freud the- orized that the “wishful state” was the mechanism that drives the economics of plea-sure–unpleasure, the primary process and the dynamics of symptoms and dreams, here,LOTHANE: FROM MIND TO BRAIN 57 the hallucinations. At this juncture we shall dispense with neurons entirely and only deal with the emotions, images, and actions involved in the experience of satisfaction. The hungry infant is in a state of “urgency of wishing,” or “wishful activation” to overcome unpleasure and to achieve pleasure. This state can have two outcomes: (a) apseudo-solution Freud calls “an internal change,” and (b) a real one, which entails ac-tion in the real world of people and real help. The internal (pseudo) solution entails adream wishful state that “will produce the same thing as a perception—namely a hal- lucination ,”(S.E. 1, p. 319, emphasis Freud’s), and a motor discharge, namely, “ex- pression of emotion, screaming” ( S.E. 1, p. 317). But with dreaming and screaming “disappointment cannot fail to occur” ( S.E. 1, p. 319), for dreams and hallucinations soothe but temporarily and do not nourish: “The human organism is incapable ofbringing about the specific action ”(S.E. 1, p. 318) of satisfaction and cessation of the hunger pain. Therefore, a real solution is needed, and this can only take place “by ex-traneous help,” the “attention of the an experienced person drawn to the child’s stateby [the child’s] discharge,” such that the child’s screaming, and motor “discharge ac-quires a secondary function of the highest importance, that of communication and the initial helplessness of human beings is the primal source of all moral motives ”(S.E. 1, pp. 317, 318; emphasis Freud’s). In one leap Freud covers the entire psychological andevolutionary process, from monadic brain psychophysiology to dyadic dynamics, frombiology to moral values. The flaw is in assimilating hallucination to perception, rather than properly equat- ing hallucination with imagination and with the memory of a previous experience ofsatisfaction, reproduced as hallucinatory fantasy. But the error in classification aside,it is absolutely necessary, in order to survive, that the human be able to tell hallucina-tion apart from perception. This brings us to a critical issue in Freud’s psychology.Here is Freud’s dual solution, as presented in the Project: a unified model combining the psychology of dreaming with the physiology of discharge of energies. The essence of the “experience of satisfaction” is defined by the most important qualities, those of pleasure and unpleasure, or pain, where unpleasure spells tension and“pleasure would be a sensation of discharge” ( S.E. 1, p. 312), that is, detension, as in hunger and satiation, or as Havelock Ellis would later say of sexual tension, tumescenceand detumescence.

Primary Process and Reality Testing

  • Freud defines the 'experience of satisfaction' through an economic model where pleasure is the sensation of energy discharge and unpleasure is tension.
  • Primary process is characterized by an uninhibited flow of energy that can lead to wishful cathexis and hallucination.
  • The ego manages secondary processes by inhibiting primary energies and employing 'indications of reality' to distinguish between perceptions and memories.
  • The author critiques Freud's early doctrines for overemphasizing physiology and energy over the psychological meanings of love, aggression, and interpersonal dynamics.
  • The transition from neurological speculation to psychoanalytic psychology is marked by the study of hysteria and the compulsion of intense ideas.
But primary process is also . . . wishful cathexis to the point of hallucination.
ution, as presented in the Project: a unified model combining the psychology of dreaming with the physiology of discharge of energies. The essence of the “experience of satisfaction” is defined by the most important qualities, those of pleasure and unpleasure, or pain, where unpleasure spells tension and“pleasure would be a sensation of discharge” ( S.E. 1, p. 312), that is, detension, as in hunger and satiation, or as Havelock Ellis would later say of sexual tension, tumescenceand detumescence. Any uninhibited flow of sensations, currents, or energies, of un-pleasure or pleasure, is by definition primary process, the latter first defined energeti-cally, or economically, for in Freud’s lexicon “economic” means dealing with energies,applying the metaphor of managing money to expenditure of any other form of energy.But primary process is also . . . wishful cathexis [an energy concept] to the point of hallucination . . . described by us as psychical primary process ; by contrast, those processes which are only made possible by a good cathexis of the ego, and which represent a moderation ofthe foregoing, are described as psychical secondary processes . It will be seen that the necessary condition of the latter is a correct employment of the indications of re- ality, which is only possible where there is inhibition by the ego. (Freud, 1950, pp. 326–327; emphasis Freud’s) Dreams and hallucinations are embodiments of primary processes defined not only en- ergetically, but also exegetically, that is, not only as energy content, but also as a mean-ingful content, a story, a drama. The pleasure-seeking energy-bound organism is ulti-mately beholden to an ego that is endowed with the secondary-process ability to controlthe flow of unpleasure or pleasure by its power to inhibit the flow of primary-processenergies. This power of inhibition is also related to another: the ability to apply so-called indications of reality in order to tell hallucination-images and perception-imagesapart, “to distinguish between a perception and a memory (idea [ Vorstellung, image],ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 58 in the original)” ( S.E. 1, p. 325). Employing such indications of reality will later be de- fined as reality testing. Which neurons carry out such functions, or how they do it, must remain a matter for speculation; that such functions exist is a basic psychological fact. Ultimately, thisability of the person has its source in perception and motility, both under the sway ofthe ego, and its biological survival purpose is to awaken the person from the dream stateof wishful hallucination. The theory of primary process resulted in two great but flawed doctrines for states of health and disease: that dreams are wish fulfillments (Freud, 1900) and that symp-toms are disguised forms of sexual drive gratification (Freud, 1905), both theoriesstressing physiology over psychology, energy over meaning, id over ego. In the case ofdreams, Freud forgot that the fabled wish fulfillment is a reaction to frustrating realityand the trauma of the day’s residue (Lothane, 1983); in the case of symptoms he wasstill far from grasping the role of aggression in pathogenesis; in both, he was still inar-ticulate about the power of love and oblivious to the dyadic nature of symptoms(Lothane, 1997a). For now, as outlined in the Project, since infant psychology and the notion of pri- mary and secondary process are implicated in the dynamics of hallucination, and sincehallucination is a prime manifestation of pathology, the time has come to discussFreud’s ideas about psychopathology. B: PART II—PSYCHOPATHOLOGY Having paid his dues to neurological science, Freud is safely back in the realm of his own new psychoanalytic psychology. Part II of the Project opens with the psy- chopathology of hysteria, a condition in which “hysterical patients are subject to acompulsion which is exercised by excessively intense ideas ”(S.E. 1, p. 347; emphasis Freud’s).

The Dynamics of Hysteria

  • Freud transitions from neurological science to psychoanalytic psychology by examining the 'excessively intense ideas' that drive hysterical patients.
  • Hysterical symptoms are distinguished from normal thoughts by being unintelligible, resistant to logic, and incongruous in their structure.
  • The mechanism of displacement allows an incidental idea (A) to act as a substitute or symbol for a repressed, emotionally charged idea (B).
  • Freud concludes that every psychological compulsion is linked to a corresponding repression, establishing a direct relationship between intrusion and amnesia.
  • The structure of a hysterical symptom is homologous to a dream, possessing both a manifest content and a hidden latent content.
The subject does not know why he weeps at A; he regards it as absurd and cannot prevent it.
, and sincehallucination is a prime manifestation of pathology, the time has come to discussFreud’s ideas about psychopathology. B: PART II—PSYCHOPATHOLOGY Having paid his dues to neurological science, Freud is safely back in the realm of his own new psychoanalytic psychology. Part II of the Project opens with the psy- chopathology of hysteria, a condition in which “hysterical patients are subject to acompulsion which is exercised by excessively intense ideas ”(S.E. 1, p. 347; emphasis Freud’s). Since excessively strong ideas are found in normal conditions as well, Freud imme- diately questions the difference between the psychology of the normal and that of thehysteric. It comes to this: The hysterical compulsion of excessively strong ideas differsfrom the normal by being prima facie “(1) unintelligible, (2) incapable of being re- solved by the activity of thought, (3) incongruous in its structure” ( S.E. 1, p. 348), ac- tually meaning that is the ideas themselves that are unintelligible and incongruous.With this definition Freud turns to dynamics of hysteria already published (1894a,1895d) and combines it with the dynamics of dreams, with which he is currently occu-pied, in preparation of his epoch-making Interpretation of Dreams. In his usual terse and incisive style Freud sets forth two key methodological-dynamic concepts: (a)the transformation dynamics of symptoms and dreams and (b)the func- tion of defense. Before the analysis Ais an excessively intense idea, which forces its way into con- sciousness too often, and each time give rise to weeping. The subject does notknow why he weeps at A; he regards it as absurd and cannot prevent it. After the analysis, it has been discovered that there is an idea B, which justifiably gives rise to weeping and which justifiably recurs .... The effect of Bis not absurd; it is in- telligible to the subject and can even be combatted by him. Bstands in a particular relation to A. For there has been an occurrence which consisted of B+A.Awas an inciden- tal circumstance; Bwas appropriate for producing the lasting effect. The repro- duction of this event in memory has taken a form of such a kind that it is asLOTHANE: FROM MIND TO BRAIN 59 though Ahad stepped into B’s place. Ahas become a substitute, a symbol for B. Hence the incongruity: Ais accompanied by consequences which it does not seem worthy of, which do not fit in with it. The formation of symbols also takes place normally. But a hysterical symbol be- haves differently .... The hysteric who weeps at Ais quite unaware that he is doing so on account of the association A—B, and Bitself plays no part at all in his psy- chical life. The symbol has in this case taken the place of the thing entirely .... Whenever anything is evoked that cathects B,Aenters consciousness instead of it. Indeed, one can infer the nature of Bfrom the provoking causes, which—in a re- markable fashion—evoke A. We can sum the matter up: Ais compulsive, Bis re- pressed (at least from consciousness). Analysis has led to the surprising conclusion:that for every compulsion there is a corresponding repression, that for every exces-sive intrusion into consciousness there is a corresponding amnesia .... The patho- logical process is one of displacement, such as we have come to know in dreams—a primary process therefore. (Freud, 1950, pp. 349–350; last emphasis added) The ideas in the above passage show how far Freud went beyond his predecessors in shaping his own new dynamic psychology. The symptom represents a fusion of emo-tion, perception, memory, imagination, conflict and defense: The symptom is con-structed like a dream. The homology of structure cannot be emphasized enough, forit is not the same as the opposite statement—that the dream is like a symptom, whichis commonplace enough. To say that the symptom is like the dream means that, like thedream, the symptom has a two-tiered structure, a manifest content and a latent content.

The Symptom as Dream

  • Freud established a structural homology between symptoms and dreams, arguing that both possess a manifest content and a latent, encoded meaning.
  • The process of analysis acts as a mirror image to the formation of symptoms, using free association to decode repressed ideational links.
  • A significant shift occurred in Freud's theory from viewing primary processes as mere energy displacement to seeing them as the transposition of meaning and qualia.
  • The concept of the primary process evolved to encompass the mythopoetic imagination, linking clinical symptoms to the creative works of poets and writers.
  • Symptoms are defined as complex fusions of emotion, perception, and memory that function as metaphors for traumatic events.
The crucial juxtaposition here is between energetics vs. exegetics, physiological energy vs. psychological expression, displacement of quanta of energy vs. displacement of qualia of meaning.
in shaping his own new dynamic psychology. The symptom represents a fusion of emo-tion, perception, memory, imagination, conflict and defense: The symptom is con-structed like a dream. The homology of structure cannot be emphasized enough, forit is not the same as the opposite statement—that the dream is like a symptom, whichis commonplace enough. To say that the symptom is like the dream means that, like thedream, the symptom has a two-tiered structure, a manifest content and a latent content.The further similarity is in the mode of causation: the symptom is an encoding of atraumatic event; the dream, of a traumatic day residue (Lothane, 1983). The manifest content of the symptom is unintelligible and incongruous, it has to be deconstructed into its components by the process of analysis to yield its latent encodedcontent, the unconscious (i.e., repressed by defense) intermediate ideas and ideationallinks in the chain of meaning. However, this analysis cannot be accomplished by amere effort of thought, it requires a special technique which Freud will elaborate laterin the Interpretation of Dreams: the technique of free association, such that the en- coding of the dream and symptom and the decoding in the process of analysis arecompatible mirror images of each other (Lothane, 1994a). For now it is essential tograsp the central dynamics in the formation of dreams and symptoms embedded in thetrans in transformation (and, by extension, transference, Lothane, 1983), and the meta in metaphor. In the formation of metaphor, symbol, dream and symptom, dynamicprocesses of transfer, transposition, and displacement (here called symbolization, tomean substitution of one thought by another) are involved. Before we saw Freud con-cerned with the transposition of affects and emotions (Freud, 1894a); here we are look-ing at the transposition of the latent idea into the manifest one, the overt symptom. The crucial juxtaposition here is between energetics vs.exegetics, physiological en- ergy vs.psychological expression, displacement of quanta of energy vs.displacement of qualia of meaning. Clearly, expenditure of energy and energy shifts are involved,even though this energy can neither be specified, shown, or measured, only experi-enced and intuited. And it is precisely here that the momentous redefinition takes placefrom primary process as displacement of energy to primary process as displacement ofideas and images endowed with meaning: that is, the transfer, or transposition, ortransformation, of meaning from one kind of thoughts to another, from the real to theimaginary, from the perceived to the remembered or hallucinated, from concrete imagesof perception to dream images of memory and imagination, as particularly evident indreams and in the dynamics of dream work, in diurnal (day)dreams (fantasies) and noc-turnal dreams.ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 60 When Freud conceived of primary processes as energy flow he assimilated from his physiologizing predecessors the notions of the experience of satisfaction and wish ful-fillment occurring in a monadic mental apparatus to end in hallucination, an idea whichhe carried into the famous seventh chapter of the Interpretation of Dreams and later into his drive theories. In time the concept of primary process came to denote not only aprocess of mobile energies, but also a kind of mental product: the varieties of fantas-tic, transformist ideas and images of dreams, hallucinations, and delusions, fueled bythe energies of pleasure and pain, determined by conflict and defense. This productivecapability of the primary process Freud would later rename “the unconscious,” mani-festing itself in the products of the metaphorical, mythopoetic, and poetic imagination,the trope, the myth and fairy tale, in short, in the works of poets and creative writers.

Primary Process and Hysterical Repression

  • Freud defines the primary process as a productive mental capability that fuels dreams, hallucinations, and the mythopoetic imagination through the energies of pleasure and pain.
  • The secondary process acts as an inhibitory function associated with reality testing, logic, and the regulation of homeostasis through defense.
  • Hysterical repression is distinguished from normal repression by the intensity of defensive affect and the specific repression of distressing sexual emotions.
  • The concept of deferred action explains how childhood memories only become traumatic once the individual reaches sexual maturity and can understand their original meaning.
  • Freud suggests that every adolescent carries the 'germ of hysteria' because memory-traces of childhood are inevitably reinterpreted through the emergence of adult sexual feelings.
It has permitted a primary process because it did not expect one.
nergies, but also a kind of mental product: the varieties of fantas-tic, transformist ideas and images of dreams, hallucinations, and delusions, fueled bythe energies of pleasure and pain, determined by conflict and defense. This productivecapability of the primary process Freud would later rename “the unconscious,” mani-festing itself in the products of the metaphorical, mythopoetic, and poetic imagination,the trope, the myth and fairy tale, in short, in the works of poets and creative writers. By comparison, as we saw, secondary process in the Project is associated with the notion of inhibition and defense and thus reality testing, logical and critical judgments,and goal- and duty-directed work. The inhibitory function of defense both regulates thehomeostasis of pleasure and unpleasure and fuses ideational and emotional elementsin the construction of dreams and symptoms. Freud’s descriptions suggest that theboundary between the organized products of the primary process and the organizingactivity of the secondary process is not an absolute one. Having defined defense as repression, Freud asks what differentiates normal re- pression from that employed by the hysteric, and the obvious answer is that “the greaterintensity of the defensive affect is responsible for it” ( S.E. 1, p. 352). But this is only a partial answer to the riddle. The further answer comes not from how the repressingforce operates, but from what is repressed, namely, distressing sexual emotions. Freudillustrates these issues with the vignette of one Emma, in whom we can discern theworkings of the “primary process . . . defence on the part of the ego . . . [and] special psychical determinants . . . in the sexual sphere” (p. 353). Emma was a sufferer fromagoraphobia while shopping, the analysis of which revealed a memory of attendantslaughing at her clothes in a store when she was twelve and an earlier seduction by ashopkeeper who fondled her through the clothes when she was eight years old. WhatEmma remembered were not the sexual interest and desire aroused in her during herseduction by the shopkeeper, but only the intermediate links, the innocent thoughts ofbeing ashamed of her clothes. The defense against remembering the traumatic andconflict-laden emotions became the motive for this hysterical repression, in the fol-lowing manner: Now this case is typical of repression in hysteria. We invariably find that a mem- ory is repressed which has only become trauma by deferred action ....E v ery ado- lescent individual has memory-traces which can only be understood with the emer-gence of sexual feelings; and accordingly, every adolescent must carry the germ ofhysteria within him. There must obviously be concurrent factors ...h ysterics [are] individuals ...[ w ho] have become prematurely sexually excitable owing to me- chanical and emotional stimulation (masturbation) and in whom one can assumein part that a premature sexual release is present in their innate disposition. (Freud,1950:356–357) Here we find unified the dynamic counterpoint of dream (displacement), desire (sex- ual arousal), defense (repression), and deferred trauma (recognition of the true mean-ing of childhood sexuality after puberty) to explain the fact of the hysteric’s “originallie” ( proton pseudos ). (S.E. 1, p. 356) “Attention is [normally] adjusted towards per- ceptions, which are what ordinarily give occasion for a release of unpleasure. Here,[however, what has appeared] is no perception but a memory, which unexpectedly re-leases unpleasure, and the ego only discovers this too late. It has permitted a primaryprocess because it did not expect one” ( S.E. 1, p. 358) Were it not for repression, EmmaLOTHANE: FROM MIND TO BRAIN 61 would have recognized her memories directly, as they were.

Freud's Intellectual Odyssey

  • Freud explores how the ego fails to defend against memories that unexpectedly release unpleasure, leading to repression and symptom formation.
  • The text argues that there is no contradiction between the trauma of childhood seduction and the innate development of sexual fantasy.
  • Freud's Project transitions from analyzing pathological symptoms to understanding universal human processes like dreams and speech associations.
  • The author asserts that Freud's work should be viewed as a coherent whole, bridging the gap between neurology and dynamic psychology.
  • A shift toward Darwinian biological justifications is noted as a departure from Freud's earlier philosophical and psychological roots.
It has permitted a primary process because it did not expect one.
s ). (S.E. 1, p. 356) “Attention is [normally] adjusted towards per- ceptions, which are what ordinarily give occasion for a release of unpleasure. Here,[however, what has appeared] is no perception but a memory, which unexpectedly re-leases unpleasure, and the ego only discovers this too late. It has permitted a primaryprocess because it did not expect one” ( S.E. 1, p. 358) Were it not for repression, EmmaLOTHANE: FROM MIND TO BRAIN 61 would have recognized her memories directly, as they were. Since she was unable to do that, the anxiety released by the deferred, postpubertal, transient recognition of the sex-ual emotion (the unexpected surfacing of that awareness in the unexpected surge of sex-ual emotion via primary process, which took her by surprise) immediately triggered de-fense and ensuing symptom formation. The above is an example of Freud’s laying the foundation for his future dynamic ideas. The hysterical lie is not a conscious lie because repression is not an entirely con-scious process, and only analysis can make this unconscious process conscious. Anotherimportant idea is the occurrence of a prior infantile sexual trauma, which Freud andothers mistakenly thought he had repudiated (Lothane, 1987). But there was no ne-cessity to abjure such a sound idea as the traumatic seduction of children by adults, forthere never was any contradiction, only complementarity, between the prematurearousal of sexuality in children and their innate disposition to spontaneous self-arousalthrough masturbatory activity and fantasy, the fusion of dream and desire. In the end we see Freud completing two journeys: from mind to brain and back again, and from abnormal psychic products to normal psychological processes. Thisleads us into the final portion of the Project. C: PART III—ATTEMPT TO REPRESENT NORMAL PSI PROCESSES? Many normal processes have already been discussed and, in the previous section, the fluidity of the boundary between the normal and the pathological become increas-ingly evident. This is further suggested by the structure of dreams: pathological symp-toms are constructed like dreams, and dreams are a universal capability of mankind. Compared to the paucity of neuronal theory in Part II of the Project, Part III is again replete with neurons and energies in aid of Freud’s still-burning ambition to “ar-rive at a fresh thesis for the mechanical representation of psychical processes” ( S.E. 1, p. 375). Here he addresses such psychical processes as attention, memory, cognition, thephenomenon of error, that is, “faults in premises” and “mistakes in judgment” as wellas “critical or examining thought” ( S.E. 1, pp. 384, 386). Also, Freud here makes explicit the importance of “speech associations” that serve “communication” ( S.E. 1, pp. 365–366), a function the acquisition of which changes the whole landscape ofthought and that will reappear in his future writings. As the explanatory power of the putative neurology is strained to its limits, a new paradigm makes its appearance: the “biological justification of all thought” ( S.E. 1, p. 361), or the Darwinian roots of Freud’s theorizing, made so much of by Sulloway(1979), in my view, a trend away from his philosophical roots (Lothane, 1981). More-over, such biological preoccupations are not in themselves psychoanalytic and do notadd anything to the creative ideas described in Part II of the Project. CONCLUDING REMARKS The purpose of this exposition is to demonstrate that Freud’s thought should be viewed as an overarching line in an intellectual odyssey in which early and late contri-butions make a coherent whole: the greatest European contribution to dynamic psy-chology since Aristotle. This continuity casts doubt on the artificial division of Freud’sthought into preanalytic and properly analytic: he was psychological and psychoana-lytic throughout the period examined.

Freud's Intellectual Odyssey

  • Freud’s work represents a continuous intellectual journey where early and late contributions form a coherent whole rather than being split into preanalytic and analytic phases.
  • A critical distinction must be made between Freud’s enduring psychoanalytic method and 'Freudism,' which consists of specific theories or myths that may become outdated.
  • The 'Project' contains significant 'brain mythology,' where common psychological phenomena are restated in the language of anatomy without sufficient scientific basis.
  • Modern neuroscience is increasingly validating the idea that psychological functioning can alter brain functioning, a reversal of Freud's early doctrine that brain causes mind.
  • Freud’s lasting legacy includes the discovery of the language of neurotic symptoms, the dynamics of repression, and the role of metaphor in dreams and delusions.
The amount of genuine brain science in the Project is small compared to the preponderance of brain mythology, that is, a restatement of common psychological phenomena, such as thought, perception, memory, dreaming, and speech, in the language of brain anatomy and physiology.
rt II of the Project. CONCLUDING REMARKS The purpose of this exposition is to demonstrate that Freud’s thought should be viewed as an overarching line in an intellectual odyssey in which early and late contri-butions make a coherent whole: the greatest European contribution to dynamic psy-chology since Aristotle. This continuity casts doubt on the artificial division of Freud’sthought into preanalytic and properly analytic: he was psychological and psychoana-lytic throughout the period examined. In addition, it is important to differentiate, aswas done by the Aristotelian psychologist Dalbiez (1941), between Freud’s psychoan-alytic method and Freudism, Freud’s various doctrines, theories, or myths. Theories come and go, but the method endures (Lothane, 1994b, 1996, 1997b, 1997c). A classi-ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 62 cal example of Freudism is the sexual etiology of the neuroses, and fewer and fewer Freudians adhere to it nowadays, as when, under the spell of Kohut, they prefer selfover sex. Now there is nothing Freudian or non-Freudian about self: it is a philosoph-ical abstraction, which, in context, may mean person, the soul, or the ego. Parts of the Project are restatements of neurological ideas of his predecessors, while some are replete with imaginative speculations about the functioning of hypotheticalneurons, like the fanciful phi-psi-omega system. The other parts represent a furtherelaboration of Freud’s theories of neurosogenesis, set forth in a number of psycholog-ical works that antedated the Project (1894a, 1895c 1895d). However, the amount of genuine brain science in the Project is small compared to the preponderance of brain mythology, that is, a restatement of common psychological phenomena, such asthought, perception, memory, dreaming, and speech, in the language of brain anatomyand physiology. Freud’s brain doctrine, or myth, is that brain causes mind, a view valid in conditions of organic brain lesions and intoxications, but even there with certain qualifications.Neuroscientists and biological behaviorists today are increasingly aware of how psy-chological functioning alters brain functioning, a view espoused by a prominent neu-roscientist of our times (Eccles, 1994) and a challenge for psychiatry of the future (Bar-chas, 1996). Freud had already dealt psychologically with such functions as perception, dream, fantasy, and memory, all functions of the person and not just material particles, ideashe found in the work of his philosophical authorities: Kant, Herbart, and Brentano. Inthe last decade of the nineteenth century Freud enriched these traditional ideas by hisown new methodological-dynamic concepts: (1) The meaning of the language of neurotic symptoms ( Studies on Hysteria, 1895d); (2) The method of conscious and unconscious dynamic processes of defense, or re- pression, related to the handling of trauma, unpleasure and pleasure, and conflict; (3) The role of memory, myth, and metaphor in the formation of symptoms and dreams, the homology of the two-tiered structure of symptoms and dreams ( The In- terpretation of Dreams, completed in 1899), as caused by a traumatic event in the for- mer, or by the day residue in the latter. This further translates into the homology of thedynamics of dream-work, hallucination-work and delusion-work, the transformationdynamics based on the affinity between the dream and poetics, as seen in tropes and fig-urative speech, such that one idea is represented by another; (4) the language of love and transference love, of conflicts of love as distinct from conflicts of sexuality, transference operating unconsciously; and (5) The Breuer and Freud cathartic method of emotive recall and abreaction that led Freud to his own psychoanalytic method founded on dream psychology and free-association, a dual method of treatment and research of mental formations in healthand disease, formulated in The Interpretation of Dreams. In agreement with Sulloway (1979, p.

Freud's Psychological Sovereignty

  • The text outlines the transition from the Breuer-Freud cathartic method to the psychoanalytic method based on dream psychology and free association.
  • Freud's 'Project' is characterized as a multifaceted work that transcends its initial reductionist and biological manifesto.
  • While medical training emphasized the biological body and sexual needs, Freud's methodology ultimately prioritized psychology as the primary lens of inquiry.
  • The author aligns with scholars like Sulloway and Forrest in viewing Freud's early work as more than a mere physiological exercise.
  • Freud is described as remaining a 'slave' to psychology, which he regarded as the 'Queen of the Sciences' in the spirit of Nietzsche.
In his psychoanalytic methodology he remained a slave to his tyrant psychology, in Nietzsche’s phrase, the Queen of the Sciences.
by another; (4) the language of love and transference love, of conflicts of love as distinct from conflicts of sexuality, transference operating unconsciously; and (5) The Breuer and Freud cathartic method of emotive recall and abreaction that led Freud to his own psychoanalytic method founded on dream psychology and free-association, a dual method of treatment and research of mental formations in healthand disease, formulated in The Interpretation of Dreams. In agreement with Sulloway (1979, p. 130), I have spelled out how the Project is “a multifaceted work reflecting far more than the reductionist manifesto that ostensiblyproclaimed its guiding rationale”; I also concur with similar conclusions reached byForrest (1995). While medicine brought home to Freud the importance of the body andits biological needs that left an imprint on many of his doctrines, most tellingly sexu-ality, in his psychoanalytic methodology he remained a slave to his tyrant psychology,in Nietzsche’s phrase, the Queen of the Sciences. REFERENCES AMACHER , P . (1965). Freud’s neurological education and its influence on psychoanalytic theory. Psychological Issues, 4, 5–93. New Y ork: International Universities Press.LOTHANE: FROM MIND TO BRAIN 63 ANDERSSON , O. (1962). Studies in the prehistory of psychoanalysis. Stockholm: Svenska Bokför- laget. BARCHAS , J. D. (1996). Towards a behavioral neurobiology. Keynote address, annual meeting of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, May 3, New Y ork City. BROOKS ,C .M .& C RANEFIELD , P . F . (1959). The historical development of physiological Thought. New Y ork: Hafner Publishing Co. BORING , E. G. (1942). Sensation and perception in the history of experimental psychology. New Y ork: Appleton-Century-Crofts. DALBIEZ , R. (1941). Psychoanalytic method and the doctrine of Freud, 2 vols. London: Longmans. [Original work published in French in 1936]. ECCLES , J. C. (1994). How the self controls its brain. Berlin: Springer. EXNER , S. (1894). Entwurf zu einer physiologischen ErklĂ€rung der psychischen Erscheinungen. Vienna: Deuticke. FORREST , D. V . (1995). Examining Mnemosyne: An end to metaphors. American Journal of Psy- chiatry, 152, 1157–1561. FREUD , S. (1888). Gehirn [brain]. In Albert Villaret (Ed.), Handwörterbuch der gesammten Medi- zin.Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke. FREUD , S. (1887–1904). Briefe an Wilhelm Fliess. J. M. Masson, (Ed.) Frankfurt: Fischer, 1986. Partially translated in The origins of psychoanalysis. New Y ork: Basic Books, 1954, and in the Standard Edition as Extracts from the Fliess papers (S.E. 1). FREUD , S. (1891b). On the interpretation of the aphasias, a critical study. Abstracted in Freud, S. (1897b.) FREUD , S. (1892–1893). A case of successful treatment by hypnotism with some remarks on the origin of hysterical symptoms through “counterwill.” S.E. 1. FREUD , S. (1894a). The neuro-psychoses of defence: (An attempt at a psychological theory of acquired hysteria, of many phobias and obsessions and of certain hallucinatory psychoses).S.E. 3. F REUD , S. (1895b). On the grounds for detaching a particular syndrome from neurasthenia under the description “anxiety neurosis.” S.E. 3. FREUD , S. (1895c). Obsessions and phobias: Their psychical mechanism and their aetiology. S.E. 3. FREUD , S. (1897b), Abstracts of the scientific writings of Dr. Sigm. Freud 1877–1897. S.E. 3, p. 240. FREUD , S. (1900). The interpretation of dreams. S.E. 4, 5. FREUD , S. (1905), Three essays on the theory of sexuality. S.E. 7. FREUD , S. (1937d). Constructions in analysis. S.E. 23. FREUD , S. (1950). Project for a Scientific Psychology. S.E. 1. FREUD , S. (1950a). Entwurf einer Psychologie. In M. Bonaparte, A. Freud & E. Kris, (eds.), Aus den AnfĂ€ngen der Psychoanalyse. London: Imago Publishing Company. FREUD ,S .( 1 9 9 0 ) . The Letters of Sigmund Freud to Eduard Silberstein 1871–1881. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University. FREUD ,S .& B REUER , J. (1893a).

Psychoanalytic and Neurological Bibliography

  • The bibliography highlights Sigmund Freud's foundational transition from neurological research to the development of psychoanalysis.
  • A significant portion of the references focuses on the historical and methodological debates surrounding Freud's theories, including critiques from 'Freud bashers.'
  • The list includes collaborative works with Josef Breuer, marking the early clinical investigations into the psychical mechanisms of hysteria.
  • Zvi Lothane's extensive contributions explore the intersection of trauma, hallucinations, and the interpersonal dynamics of the psychoanalytic method.
  • The sources bridge the gap between biological psychiatry and the psychological interpretation of the soul and mind.
LOTHANE , Z. (1996). Psychoanalytic method and mischief of Freud bashers.
ee essays on the theory of sexuality. S.E. 7. FREUD , S. (1937d). Constructions in analysis. S.E. 23. FREUD , S. (1950). Project for a Scientific Psychology. S.E. 1. FREUD , S. (1950a). Entwurf einer Psychologie. In M. Bonaparte, A. Freud & E. Kris, (eds.), Aus den AnfĂ€ngen der Psychoanalyse. London: Imago Publishing Company. FREUD ,S .( 1 9 9 0 ) . The Letters of Sigmund Freud to Eduard Silberstein 1871–1881. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University. FREUD ,S .& B REUER , J. (1893a). On the psychical mechanism of hysterical phenomena: Prelim- inary communication. S.E. 2. FREUD ,S .& B REUER , J. (1895d). Studies on hysteria. S.E. 2. FREUD ,S .& D ARKSCHEWITSCH ,L .O . VON (1886b). Ueber die Beziehung des Strickkörpers zum Hinterstrang und Hinterstrangskern nebst Bemerkungen ĂŒber zwei Felder de Oblongata. [Onthe relation of the restiform body to the posterior column and its nucleus with some remarkson two fields of the medulla oblongata]. S.E. 3, p. 237), Neurologisches Centralblatt, 5: 121–129. H ERRNSTEIN ,R .J .& B ORING , E. G. (1965). A source book in the history of psychology. Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. JONES , E. (1953), The life and work of Sigmund Freud, Vol. 1. New Y ork: Basic Books. KANDEL , E. R., S CHW ARTZ ,J .H .& J ESSELL , T. M. (1991). Principles of neural science. New Y ork: Elsevier. LOTHANE , Z. (1981). A perspective on Freud and psychoanalysis [review of Sulloway 1979]. Psy- choanalytic Review, 68, 348–361. LOTHANE , Z. (1982). The psychopathology of hallucinations—a methodological analysis. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 55, 335–348. LOTHANE , Z. (1983). Reality, dream, and trauma. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 19, 423–443.ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 64 LOTHANE , Z. (1987). Love, seduction and trauma. Psychoanalytic Review, 74: 83–105. LOTHANE , Z. (1992). Paul Flechsig and the first biological psychiatry. In In defense of Schreber: Soul murder and psychiatry. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press. LOTHANE , Z. (1994a). The analyzing instrument and reciprocal free association. Journal of Clin- ical Psychoanalysis, 3, 61–82. LOTHANE , Z. (1994b). Review of M. Macmillan’s “ Freud evaluated: The completed arc .”Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 22, 560–562. LOTHANE , Z. (1995). Review of Sander Gilman’s “Hysteria beyond Freud: The case of Sigmund Freud, Race, and Gender.” Psychoanalytic Books, 6: 74–87. LOTHANE , Z. (1996). Psychoanalytic method and mischief of Freud bashers. Psychoanalytic Times, XIII (12), 49–50. LOTHANE , Z. (1997). Freud and the interpersonal. International Forum of Psycyhoanalysis, 6 , 175–184. LOTHANE , Z. (1997b). The schism between Frued and Jung over Schreber: Its implications for method and doctrine. International Forum of Psychoanalysis, 6, 103–115. LOTHANE , Z. (1997c). Review of J. Farrell’s “Freud’s Paranoid Quest.” Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 45, 1319–1323. REVESZ , B. (1917). Geschichte des Seelenbegriffes und der Seelenlokalisation. Stuttgart: Enke. [reprint, Amsterdam: E. J. Boset, 1966.] SULLOW AY , F . (1979). Freud, biologist of the mind —Beyond the psychoanalytic legend. New Y ork: Basic Books. WELLCOME FOUNDATION (1958). The brain and its functions. An Anglo-American symposium, Lon- don, 1957. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.LOTHANE: FROM MIND TO BRAIN 65