The distinction between implicit (non-conscious) and explicit (conscious) knowledge made by cognitive scientists is applied to the psychoanalytic idea of repressed contents. The consequences of repression are suggested to have been caused by implicit representations. Repressed memories can also be treated in terms of explicit representations, which are prevented from becoming activated. Implicit knowledge cannot, however, be made conscious, and thus the idea of becoming conscious of the repressed desires and fears that have never been conscious is contradictory. This tension may be relieved by reconceptualising the idea of becoming conscious of the repressed. It is suggested that this could be seen as creating explicit knowledge about the effects of implicit representations. By applying the implicit/explicit knowledge distinction, psychoanalytic ideas concerning the repressed could be connected to current views in the domain of cognitive orientation.

The distinction between implicit (non‐conscious) and explicit (conscious) knowledge made by cognitive scientists is applied to the psychoanalytic idea of repressed contents. The consequences of repression are suggested to have been caused by implicit representations. Repressed memories can also be treated in terms of explicit representations, which are prevented from becoming activated. Implicit knowledge cannot, however, be made conscious, and thus the idea of becoming conscious of the repressed desires and fears that have never been conscious is contradictory. This tension may be relieved by reconceptualising the idea of becoming conscious of the repressed. It is suggested that this could be seen as creating explicit knowledge about the effects of implicit representations. By applying the implicit/explicit knowledge distinction, psychoanalytic ideas concerning the repressed could be connected to current views in the domain of cognitive orientation.

Neuropsychoanalysis focuses on the neural counterparts of psychoanalytically interesting phenomena and has left the difference in the metaphysical presuppositions between neuroscience and psychoanalysis unexamined. The authors analyse the logical possibilities concerning the relation between the brain and the mental unconscious in terms of the serial, parallel, epiphenomenalist and Kantian conceptions, and conclude that none of them provides a satisfactory ground for neuropsychoanalysis. As far as psychoanalytic explanations refer to the mental unconscious, they cannot be verified with the help of neuroscience. Neither is it possible to form a picture of how a neuro-viewpoint might be of help for psychoanalytic theorizing. Neuropsychoanalysis has occasionally been seen as a reductionist affair, but the authors suggest that neuropsychoanalysts themselves lean on the hybrid conception, which combines neuroscientific and psychoanalytic viewpoints. The authors state arguments in favour of the interfield conception of neuropsychoanalysis that takes seriously the metaphysical tensions between neuroscience and psychoanalysis.

This article concerns the therapeutic potential of metaphor in group poetry therapy, concentrating on the poetry therapy process of people diagnosed with schizophrenia. The data was collected in a one-year poetry therapy group. The main questions were: (1) What kind of therapeutic potential can metaphors offer in group poetry therapy? (2) What are the personal meanings and evaluations that the participants give to the therapy process and its effects on their lives? (3) What are the most significant elements in poetry therapy from the viewpoint of the client? The analysis was based on the Grounded theory method. The results showed that the most significant therapeutic factors of the process were social interaction, safety, and written selfexpression. Writing in a group setting, especially through collaborative writing, had many positive effects on the clients. It allowed them to experience life's worth raising their hope. Metaphors and collaborative writing made it possible to discuss difficult personal experiences.

This article examines the origins and early development of psychoanalytically inspired psychohistory from the late 1950s to the early 1970s. It focuses on Erik H. Erikson, Bruce Mazlish, and Robert Jay Lifton and illustrates their contributions to psychoanalytic psychohistory. Erikson, Mazlish, and Lifton were core members of the Wellfleet group, a research project originally funded by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1965 to conceptualize the foundation of psychohistory. The article gives an account of the early history of the Wellfleet group and argues for specific historical reasons to explain why psychoanalytic psychohistory emerged on the East Coast of the United States in the late 1950s and early 1960s. A critique of the Wellfleet group in unpublished correspondence of Erich Fromm and David Riesman is also discussed.