build, to create, to be responsible fornoneself. These goals are the opposite ofnthe narcissistic hedonism espoused bynthe self-actualization movements.nMr. Goble, the author of the secondnresponse, makes two major points. Hisnfirst point is that psychoanalysis promotesnimmorality, which he relates tonFreud’s criticism of religion. His secondnpoint is that the Founding Fathers had anpositive and hopeful view of their fellownman. He supports his position by a fewnquotations. An examination of the writingsnof the Founding Fathers yields informationnat variance with Mr. Coble’snstatements.nSuch an investigation shows that deismnwas prominent in the thinking of Franklin,nJefferson, and Adams. Deism promotesnreason, order, and balance overnrevelation, mysticism, and ritual. Frank-nUn, for example, abandoned materialismnto embrace then-contemporary deisticnaffirmations. Religion, he believed, righdynor wrongly, was necessary for the unenlightened.nHe wrote in 1757: ‘Tou yourselfnmay find it easy to live a virtuous Lifenwithout… Religion . . . But think howngreat a Proportion of Mankind consistsnof weak and ignorant Men and Womenn… who have need of the motives of Religionnto restrain them from Vice, to supportntheir Virtue, and retain them in thenPractice of it… till it becomes habitual,nwhich is the great Point of it.” As fornFranklin’s opinion of his fellow man,nconsider what he wrote to Priesdey inn1782: “Men I find to be a Sort of beingsnvery badly constructed, as they are …nmore disposed to do Mischief to eachnother than to make Reparation, muchnmore easily disceived than undisceiv’d”nLater in the letter he wonders “if thenSpecies [man] were really worth producingnor preserving; but of this I beginnto doubt.”nAdams, the descendent of Puritansn(who were notably negative about man),nwrote to Jeflferson in 1825: “The Europeansn. . . believe that great principle,nwhich has produced this boundless Universe,nNewton’s Universe, and Hershell’snChronicles of CttlturenUniverse, came down to this Utde Ball,nto be spit-upon by Jews; and imtill thisnawful blasphemy is got rid of; there willnnever be any liberal science in thenworld.” Others, such as Madison andnPaine, echoed these sentiments. Washingtonnwas one of the few FoundingnFathers who espoused orthodoxnChristianity.nAs for the Whig and Federalist positionsnon government, John Adams wrotenin 1787-88: “To expect self-denial fromnmen, when they have a majority in theirnfevor, and consequentiy power to gratifynthemselves, is to disbelieve all historynand universal experience.” In 1790nAdams wrote to Brand-Hollis; “My fiindamentalnmaxim of government is,nnever to trust the lamb to the custody ofnthe wolf.” Washington wrote to Jay: “Wenhave, probably, had too good an opinionnof human nature in forming our confederation,”nSeparation of powers was considerednthe basis of free governments.nJefferson stated in 1783 that “the powersnof government should be so divided andnbalanced among several bodies of m^istracy,nas that no one could transcendntheir legal limits, without being effectuallynchecked and restrained by thenothers.”n1 maintain that some of the obviousndifferences between Freud and Adams,nJefferson, and Franklin result from thendifferent contemporary intellectualnworlds of 18th-century America andn19th-century Europe. Late-20th-centurynman can see powerful similarities. ThenFounding Fathers wei-e skeptical aboutnreligion and looked to science and reasonnfor a code of ethical behavior. ThenFounding Fathers believed that man wasnsusceptible to corruption when givennpower; hence, checks and balancesnwere necessary.nThe last response, written by Mr.nLippman, begins with a self-fulfillingnprophecy about the worthlessness ofnEdD.’s rather than with a substantivenissue. However, I shall reply to those ofnhis objections that take issue with thencontent of my essay. Apparentiy, I didnnnnot sufficiently explain my point aboutnthe reality principle. The “reality” tonwhich 1 refer is the “common-sense”nreality that enables an individual tonfunction effectively in our culture, inndefiance of all philosophic or semanticnarguments. Several clinical examplesnwill, I hope, suffice to clarify the naturenof the reality at issue.nA hallucination is a case where a personnperceives something that is notnthere; tf that person no longer perceivesnwhat is not there, we can saynthat he sees the world more realistically.nThen there is the person with anphobia, who fears that which is notnrealistically dangerous, often being quitenaware that this fear is irrational but unablento overcome it nevertheless. If thenobject is no longer experienced as dangerousnwe can say that this person’s sensenof reality is, to that degree, expanded.nMr. Lippman’s statements about thenscientific nature of “Freudianism” arencontradictory, to say the least. Psychoanalysisncaimot be used as “a basis fornthe research of physical scientists” preciselynbecause man is complex. Manncarmot be reduced to mechanistic equationsnas Marxists and behaviorists believe.nMr. Lippman cannot have it both ways. Ifnman is complex and not mechanisticallynreducible, how can he fault psychoanalysisnfor maintaining the same position?nPsychoanalysis, as a professional discipline,ndid not write, and thus takes nonresponsibility fiar The White Hotel Again,nMr. Lippman contradicts himself Obviously,nhe is distressed at the amount ofnattention the book received, and yet hisnresponse ends with a comment that psychoanalyticnliterature has had littie effectnon the modem world. If Mr. Lippmannobjects to the temporary seffpreoccupationnevident in people undergoingnpsychoanalysis, I sympathize withnhim. If he wishes to say that not manynpeople have been psychoanalyzed, I cannonly agree with him. If he disapproves ofn”what passes for the educated classes,”nthat is certainly his privilege; the uneducatednhave always been suspicious ofnthe educated.n