Psychoanalytic Dialogues

The International Journal of Relational Perspectives

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hpsd20

Portals through Liminal Space: Commentary on

Shapiro and Marks-Tarlow’s “Varieties of Clinical
Intuition”

Janine de Peyer

To cite this article: Janine de Peyer (2021) Portals through Liminal Space: Commentary on
Shapiro and Marks-Tarlow’s “Varieties of Clinical Intuition”, Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 31:3,
294-301, DOI: 10.1080/10481885.2021.1902738

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10481885.2021.1902738

Published online: 03 Jun 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 47

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hpsd20
PSYCHOANALYTIC DIALOGUES
2021, VOL. 31, NO. 3, 294–301
https://doi.org/10.1080/10481885.2021.1902738

Portals through Liminal Space: Commentary on Shapiro and

Marks-Tarlow’s “Varieties of Clinical Intuition”
Janine de Peyer, LCSW
National Institute for the Psychotherapies, New York, New York, USA

ABSTRACT
In this commentary of Shapiro and Marks-Tarlow’s “Varieties of
Clinical Intuition” (this issue), I discuss the clinical implications of
their integrative model of intuition, examining both the value and
potential hazards of moments of local (sensory-based) and non­
local (non-sensory-based) intuitive knowing. While considering
the desire to enhance one’s own natural intuitive capacity,
I explore the riches and potential complications faced by clini­
cians whose personal boundaries are pierced by their patients’
accurate intuitive dreams.

I experienced a surge of excitement while reading Shapiro and Marks-Tarlow’s (this issue)
comprehensive explication of the differences, yet inescapable coexistence, of local and
nonlocal intuition. Having previously endeavored to grasp the ineffable phenomenon of
telepathy,1 I took pleasure in digesting the various ingredients these authors synthesize to
form an integrative scientific language for intuitive experience. Combining neuropsychoa­
nalysis, psychophysiology, Psi research, complexity science, and quantum neurobiology, the
authors call for a “metaphor shift” that bridges divides, enabling a “unified picture of
psychophysical reality” (p. 262). Each ingredient carefully primed and dissected, blends
like tastes and textures of a satisfying meal, coalescing into an integrative model that
attempts the impossible—to explain the “continuous interplay between sensory local-
interactive and extrasensory nonlocal-partipatory channels of awareness” (p. 278).
The authors’ nonlocal neurodynamics model brings us closer than ever to a scientific
explanation for intuition, yet it is their clinical vignettes that humanize this otherwise
complicated mosaic—storytelling thus breathing life into an otherwise abstract array of
ideas. What clinical implications can we draw from their discoveries? What are we to
actually do when such uncanny moments of local or nonlocal information penetrate the veil
of an otherwise routine daily psychotherapy session?
The authors offer four clinical vignettes depicting four distinct forms of intuitive
experience. While delving into the clinical implications of each example, I will draw
correlations with experiences of my own, holding three pivotal questions in mind:

(i) What is the clinical value of awareness of intuitive information sharing?

(ii) Can we increase receptivity to intuitive awareness?

CONTACT Janine de Peyer, LCSW jdepeyer@gmail.com 245 East 72nd Street, Suite 1C, New York, NY 10021.
1
De Peyer (2014, 2016, 2017, in press).
Copyright © 2021 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 PSYCHOANALYTIC DIALOGUES 295

(iii) How do we handle moments of intuitive/uncanny awarenesses when they sponta­

neously arise?

Laying the groundwork

Let me begin by acknowledging that although complex scientific descriptors for intuitive
exchanges might be thrilling for some, others might find such highly academic lexicon off-
putting, alienating, or even counterintuitive, preferring instead to leave the “uncanny” to the
realm of mysticism. The long-standing tendency to dichotomize mysticism and science is
precisely one of the false binaries that I believe this paper helps to dissolve.
As scientific research advances, limitations of the Newtonian-Cartesian model of the universe
have become increasingly apparent, impelling scientists to turn their microscope further inward
toward deeper subatomic registers. This pursuit has ironically brought quantum theorists to the
door of ancient mysticism, aligning with Vedanta and Buddhist concepts such as Goswami’s
(2008) “universal consciousness,” Wolfgang Pauli’s “lucid mysticism” (Marin, 2009), or David
Bohm’s (1980) “Wholeness and the Implicate Order.” When applied to humanistic and trans­
personal fields, frequent accounts of unexplainable intuitive or telepathic communications have
exceeded the limits of classical and sensory-based scientific explanation, forcing us to delve
further into what our authors refer to as “nonlocal-participatory dynamics” (p. 26).
Shapiro and Marks-Tarlow’s clinical vignettes differentiate between local (sensory-
based) intuition and nonlocal (non-sensory-based) intuition that “tap[s] into the quantum
informational domain” (p. 263). Although such differentiation can be clarifying, I’m not
sure that intuition can be so discreetly categorized. Lines between local-interactive and
nonlocal-participatory can often appear blurred. I find it helpful to place intuition on a fluid
“continuum of mutual receptivity along which sensory and non-sensory-based forms of
human empathic responsiveness might be positioned” (De Peyer, 2017).
Each of the authors’ examples presents unique challenges for the clinician, however
comfortable or well-versed in the “intuitive.”

Vignette 1—associative intuition as shared subjectivities

Shapiro’s “scared rabbit” association represents the category of bi-directional sharing of
associative information (p. 266). By naming the hunter/scared rabbit dynamic (and thus
symbolically giving recognition to his patient’s fear), Shapiro created an experience of safety
that made it possible for his patient to stay. The patient responded in kind by presenting her
own uncanny association to their mutual interest in Sherlock Holmes, thus intuiting
a mutually shared working language. Shapiro demonstrates how being open, attuned, and
sometimes ready to articulate this form of free association with a patient can help avert
clinical impasse. The authors note it is often exactly at such moments of threat to the
therapeutic connection that unbidden telepathic information emerges. In this case, it was
Shapiro’s image of the scared rabbit that provided the clinical “bridge.” He intuited,
correctly, that she was ready to hear it. Some of our best hunches as clinicians come to us
this way, through spontaneous shared intuitive associations of imagery, sounds, sensations,
memories, or even names that “appear out of nowhere,” yet meaningfully link us with our
patient.
296 J. DE PEYER

When associative intuition takes linguistic form, such as a “slip of the tongue,” a word
might ‘accidentally’ push forth, unwittingly capturing an image or memory that contains
deep significance for the patient. Such was the case with my patient “Jordan,” when at
a critical moment of clinical impasse I involuntarily blurted out the word “Tuckahoe” when
attempting to say “Timbuktu” (De Peyer, 2016). Unbeknownst to me, the name “Tuckahoe”
carried a profound symbolic meaning of safety for my patient, representing the location
where she would go to hide in order to escape her brother’s brutal physical attacks. This
moment of uncanny associative intuition took us both by surprise, shifting us out of
impasse by conveying an other-worldly level of interconnectedness. The word
“Tuckahoe” provided a symbolic “solution” to Jordan’s current threat of loss of safety.
How had my mind come up with this precise name? I had never before heard the name
“Tuckahoe.” Wondering at first how Jordan had “transmitted” this name to me, I arrived at
the conclusion (in alignment with Shapiro and Marks-Tarlow’s thesis), that the name had
not been telepathically “sent” to me. Rather, our heightened relational impasse had some­
how pierced the veil of sensory-based, associative relating, giving us “mutual accessibility to
a shared realm of consciousness;” a nonlocal “wavelength of archetypal imagery” from
which I had involuntarily plucked the name “Tuckahoe” (De Peyer, in press).
Are the “rabbit” and “Tuckahoe” examples solely representative of associative intuition?
Or, is there overlap with the somatic/affective? How do we differentiate between the two? It
seems to me that somatic/affective involvement played a key role in both examples—the
patient’s fear activating both Shapiro’s and my own right brain, implicit, sensory system in
resonance with our patients’. Although Shapiro had only observed the rabbit earlier on his
lawn, it is likely that he had also empathically resonated with the experience of the rabbit.
Perhaps it was shared unconscious resonance with “fear” that formed the nonlocal correla­
tion linking rabbit, Shapiro, and his patient. What exactly happens when we resonate with
one another’s emotions? What is the relationship between empathy and intuition? Does
affect invite a form of resonance that goes beyond localized, sensory intuition? I believe it is
often affect (in this case fear) that provides the portal, or “bridge” to the nonlocal mind, thus
giving access to both associative and somatic intuitive information.

Vignette 2—somatic intuition as shared psychophysiology

Here, Marks-Tarlow picks up unconscious, local, sensory information in the form of an
unexplained “panicky” feeling that harbingers later revelations in the treatment. While
Klein and Bion’s theories effectively capture this projective-identificatory phenomenon,
Shapiro and Marks-Tarlow supply scientific underpinnings for how this local-interactive,
somatic/affective intuition might actually operate (p. 269). Along these lines, I often notice
that attention to one’s sensory/affective response during the first few milliseconds of meet­
ing a new patient can offer intuitive information that proves instrumental to unlocking the
case.
Marks-Tarlow’s experience of fear provided clinical clues to her case in a strikingly
similar way to my own experience with “Richard” (De Peyer, 2002). From the first moment
I laid eyes on Richard in my waiting room, a creepy sensation of fear came over me, that
within the first few sessions increased to a feeling of terror. Nothing the patient was overtly
doing or saying gave rise to this feeling. As treatment progressed, I learned my terror was
a “presentiment” of a sadomasochistic dynamic yet to unfold between us. Remarkably
 PSYCHOANALYTIC DIALOGUES 297

similar to Marks-Tarlow’s case, I learned I had intuitively become the receptacle for
dissociated sexualized trauma Richard had experienced as a boy. I initially embodied
dissociated feelings of terror, shame, vulnerability, and victimization from Richard’s child­
hood, yet our unfolding sadomasochistic dynamic provided the pathway for mutual projec­
tions and counter-identifications that could eventually be articulated and “re-metabolized”
over time. My initial fear provided the clue, yet I learned that unconscious somatic
receptivity goes both ways—patients can also serve as receptacles for therapists’ dissociated
experience. It was challenging for me to have to later realize that Richard had also been
embodying my dissociated aggression.
As in Marks-Tarlow’s case, I tolerated and observed my experience of fear until its
meaning became clearer and I could use it productively. My patient probably sensed
(possibly even enjoying) my suffering while our sadomasochistic dynamic unfolded, but
as with Marks-Tarlow, the intuitive information had to be processed before I could feel
ready for self-disclosure. Premature self-disclosure can sometimes collapse otherwise
receptive, potential space. My work with Richard taught me that psychic porousness in
the therapist can be both an asset and a liability, “sometimes summoning the therapist to
‘lose control’ of the treatment in order to ‘find’ the patient” (De Peyer, in press).

Vignettes 3 and 4—nonlocal-participatory intuitive knowing

These two vignettes illustrate patients’ telepathic dreams that somehow enter their analysts’
personal experience. Since both patients dreamed their dreams while geographically sepa­
rated from their analysts, there is no doubt that this form of intuition engages non-sensory,
“nonlocal-participatory channels of intuitive knowing” (p. 275). In Vignette 3 the patient
dreams the therapist’s own repetitive childhood dream, and in Vignette 4 the patient
dreams his analyst’s actual experience of having his tooth extracted. How did these patients
divine such intimate details about their analysts? This is where the authors highlight the
need for a “mental shift to a radically different perspective” in order to grasp the implica­
tions of this nonlocal level of interconnectedness (p. 275). The increasing number of
examples in psychoanalytic literature of patients’ telepathic dreams indicates the impor­
tance of ongoing investigation in this area (Eshel, 2006; Ullman, 2003), but for our
purposes, let us explore how one might handle such clinical moments.
In Vignette 3, Marks-Tarlow’s patient, likely feeling threatened with loss through sensing
her analyst’s boredom and irritation, enters her analyst’s private dreamscape and “calls her
back” by having Marks-Tarlow’s very own childhood dream in which she felt scared and
alone. Here again, is it affect that provides the connective “bridge” between patient and
analyst?—in this case, feeling scared and alone?
Marks-Tarlow does not share with us how she handled her patient’s dream, but based on
my own experience, when a patient spontaneously penetrates the inner sanctuary of her
analyst’s private mind (even if one knows the notion of “private thoughts” is a fallacy), the
feeling of intrusion can be quite jarring. One can feel violated—vulnerable to further
trespassing or psychic colonization. One might not want to acknowledge the accuracy of
the patient’s dream in the effort to restore one’s own illusive sense of boundaries.
Nonetheless, such a wake-up call can remind the clinician how emotionally vulnerable
their patient must be feeling in order to unconsciously orchestrate such a telepathic “solu­
tion” (De Peyer, 2016, p. 165).
298 J. DE PEYER

Acknowledging the accuracy of a patient’s dream might allow the patient to feel
exquisitely close to their analyst; however, it could also be overwhelming and dysregulating.
The choice of whether or not to disclose the dream’s accuracy would depend, like every­
thing else, on the mental states of both patient and analyst, the nature of the dream, and the
intersubjective particularities of the analytic dyad.
The analyst’s own dreams about her patients can, of course, be enormously informative,
whether explicitly shared or not. Analysts frequently use their own dreams as metaphoric
guides to treatments without ever directly disclosing them to their patients (Ferro, 2009;
Stern, 2013). Conversely, in some treatments, the mutual sharing of dreams between patient
and analyst might be plausible; even deeply curative. This is where heeding the potential
“shadow-side” of one’s own intuition is important, lest one slip into over-sharing, or under-
estimating the implications of analytic asymmetry.
In Vignette 4, the patient’s dream intersects with the objective reality of his analyst who
did, indeed, have a tooth extracted. This dream therefore not only involved the analyst but
also a third party in objective reality—the dentist. When a dreamer’s dream intersects with
the “reality” of his analyst’s life, we truly see nonlocal participatory channels of intuition at
work. Subjective and objective domains dissolve into “fractal boundaries” that defy time and
space (Marks-Tarlow & Shapiro, in press) and the analyst faces a difficult predicament;
whether or not to share with the patient the accuracy of their dream.
In Vignette 4, the analyst (Dr. L) does confirm the accuracy of his patient’s (Rowan Scott’s)
dream about him, but he does so at the very end of the session, leaving us wondering how
Dr. Scott reacted to his analyst’s admission. When my own patient Jordan recounted a dream
that exactly matched a horrifying medical emergency that had taken place in my own home that
previous weekend, my feeling of intrusion escalated to new proportions leaving me unable, at
that moment, to confirm her dream (De Peyer, 2016, p. 167). In Jordan’s dream, she had
awakened in the middle of the night to find her husband sitting doubled over on the toilet,
losing blood. The details were identical to events that had occurred with my own husband. How
had she “known” what had happened in my home? Feeling utterly unnerved, and barely having
had time to recover from my real emergency, I found myself speechless and in no condition to
engage with her about the accuracy of her dream. This dream, the culmination of several
uncanny experiences I had had with Jordan, convinced me beyond a shadow of doubt, however,
that we were co-participating in an entangled system that defied space-time as we know it.
Much later, after careful consideration, I did feel ready to tell my patient about the
accuracy of her dream in the context of a larger discussion about our uncanny “porousness.”
Although she felt heartened by the psychic closeness these uncanny events affirmed and the
underlying “glue” that they afforded us, Jordan nonetheless told me she also felt wary of
having future dreams about me lest she’d feel “burdened” with information she’d rather not
have to carry. Significantly, after that discussion, to my knowledge, no further uncanny
exchanges took place between us. Perhaps we each needed to withdraw, closing off aware­
ness of our psychic portals in need of shoring up our respective subjectivities.

Analytic vs. intuitive listening

In my view, the advantages of stimulating one’s intuitive instrument as a clinician are self-
evident. Although Freud offered little guidance on how to achieve a stance of “evenly
hovering attention” (Freud, 1912), traditional analytic listening approaches—attention to
 PSYCHOANALYTIC DIALOGUES 299

patients’ verbal emissions, behavioral patterns, family history, psychodynamics, deeply

entrenched belief systems, dream material, patterns of transference/countertransference
enactments—are all invaluable.
But then there is intuitive listening—the act of letting go, allowing oneself to “float” while
listening mindfully with non-judgmental curiosity, to empathic identifications, counter-
identifications, spontaneous hallucinatory sounds, smells, images, somatic sensations, and
illogical reverie. Intuitive listening requires a surrender to chaos—a dissolving of definitions
between self and other—an opening to co-participation in a collective, nonlocal state of oneness.
Bromberg’s (1998) notion of “standing in the spaces” speaks to the analyst’s experiential
attitude of attending to shifting self-states between patient and therapist. An attitude of
non-directive openness and curiosity fosters trust in the healing nature of this experiential
process. Since minds are interconnected, the analyst’s intuition/feelings/thoughts/imagery
about a patient, even in-between sessions, must unwittingly bear influence. Rooting out the
source of one’s personal grievances or negative feelings toward patients such as boredom,
competitiveness, or resentment, can in itself yield intuitive information. Similarly, can
loosely and intentionally re-orienting oneself toward a patient’s natural capacity for healing,
positively influence their treatment outcome?

Projection vs. intuition

How do we know when a feeling is “intuitive’ versus simply a projection of our own
making? Can intuition be confused with our own self-serving fantasy? Or, should we
explore projections from both a coconstructive and intuitive perspective? Our authors
remind us that the “experiential-intuitive and rational-analytic modes [ideally] operate in
tandem” (p. 265). Intuitive guidance is best held loosely, entertained as a possibility, and
checked against the patient’s experience. It can be just as dangerous to be overly zealous
about psychic intuitiveness as it can to be overly skeptical.

Clinical timing
Even if one’s intuition does prove, through informed experience, to be accurate, the patient
may still not be ready to hear it. The skillful clinician will “intuit” the manner, and timing
with which to introduce intuitive material. The “art” of psychoanalysis depends upon
careful attunement, wherever possible, to the patient’s experience, and commitment to
working through with earnest repair when things go awry.

Heightening intuitive sensibility

Many traditions promote techniques for inducing hypnogogic states that foster greater
intuitive awareness. Telepathy research supports the notion that relinquishing cognitive
function in favor of accessing slower rhythmic brain activity, is indeed conducive to
expanding consciousness and telepathic receptivity (Radin, 2003). But herein lies the
paradox: wanting it too much generally shuts it down. As Melanie Suchet reminds us,
“Reverie and intuition come unbidden, without desire, without conscious wish” (Suchet,
2016, p. 755).
300 J. DE PEYER

So, can one, in fact, train oneself to increase intuitive awareness? Contemplative practices
such as meditation and breathing techniques do appear to increase one’s porousness. Sitting
quietly before sessions, then releasing one’s mind of memory or desire (Bion, 1967) indeed
seems to promote both local and nonlocal intuitive receptivity.
Humanistic psychotherapists such as Stanislav Grof (2000) draw from ancient and
aboriginal techniques to promote regression into nonordinary states of consciousness,
ranging from breathwork, to drumming, dance, sensory deprivation, meditation, yoga,
and use of organic psychedelic materials. His “holotropic breathwork” approach integrates
accelerated breathing, evocative music, and bodywork (p. 183). Certainly, these approaches
are an acquired taste, but we have much to learn from ancient cultures about gaining access
to transpersonal, transcendent states of consciousness.
Shapiro and Marks-Tarlow’s contributions to nonlocal neurodynamics come at a time of
increased curiosity within the mainstream scientific, and psychoanalytic communities about
altered states of consciousness. Scientific explanations for intuitive perception (stereotypi­
cally relegated to the feminine) help de-stigmatize these explorations. Recent controlled
studies at Johns Hopkins and New York Universities, for example, have attempted to
measure the correlation between “mystical experience” and the alleviation of depression
and anxiety in cancer patients who have undergone treatment with psychedelics (Nichols
et al., 2017). In further studies, neurocognitive approaches are being applied to the study of
transcendent states (Glickson & Ohana, 2011), and telepathy research is finally garnering
serious scientific respect (Cardeña et al., 2014).
In my own clinical practice, in addition to attempting to quiet my mind, I listen for
musical tones, colors, and visual images that help draw me to the center of my patients’ pain.
I have found that the integration of somatically informed practices such as EMDR (Parnell,
2006; Shapiro, 2001) has also helped increased my receptivity. While practicing bilateral
stimulation (applied through visual, auditory, or tactile methods), the patient enters
a nonverbal, enhanced, more fluid associative state. During these moments of silence, I am
liberated to attune to my own body, engaging in a form of reverie that can yield spontaneous
imagery. These associations transcend the patient’s chronological history, offering informa­
tion that can be useful in the form of empathic interventions, or focused cognitive “inter­
weaves.” Since we exist on the threshold of intuitive relating, psychoanalytic practice only
stands to benefit from cross-fertilization with both ancient, and contemporary practices.

Acknowledgements
I thank Shapiro and Marks-Tarlow for providing a scientific framework for this enchanted instru­
ment that ultimately unites us all.

Notes on contributor
Janine de Peyer, LCSW, is Faculty and Supervisor at the National Institute for the Psychotherapies,
and Faculty, Supervisor and Executive Committee member at the Stephen Mitchell Relational Study
Center, New York. Janine is Associate Editor with Psychoanalytic Dialogues, and is in private practice
in New York City where she integrates EMDR and creative visualization within a relational psycho­
analytic framework.
 PSYCHOANALYTIC DIALOGUES 301

References
Bion, W. R. (1967). Notes on memory and desire. In E. B. Spillius (Ed.), Melanie Klein today (Vol. 2,
pp. 17–21). Routledge.
Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the implicate order. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bromberg, P. M. (1998). Standing in the spaces: Essays on clinical process, trauma, and dissociation.
Analytic Press.
Cardeña, E., Lynn, S. J., & Krippner, S. (Eds.). (2014). Varieties of anomalous experience: Ex-amining
the scientific evidence (2nd ed.). American Psychological As-sociation.
De Peyer, J. (2002). Private terrors: Sexualized aggression and a psychoanalyst’s fear of her patient.
Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 12(4), 509–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/10481881209348685
De Peyer, J. (2014). Telepathic entanglements: Where are we today? Commentary on paper by
Claudie Massicotte. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 24(1), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/10481885.
2014.870842
De Peyer, J. (2016). Uncanny communication and the porous mind. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 26(2),
156–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/10481885.2016.1144978
De Peyer, J. (2017). Traversing the ineffable: Commentary on Sharon Farber’s “Becoming a Tele-
pathic Tuning Fork”. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 27(6), 735–740. https://doi.org/10.1080/10481885.
2017.1379330
De Peyer, J. (in press). Skating on thin ice: Clinical dilemmas with the uncanny. Psychotherapy Section
Review, (66). Spring 2021, Leicester, British Psychological Society. Psychotherapy Journal.
Eshel, O. (2006). Where are you, my beloved?: On absence, loss, and the enigma of telepathic dreams. International
Journal of Psychoanalysis, 87(6), 1603–1627. https://doi.org/10.1516/7GM3-MLDR-1W8K-LVLJ
Ferro, A. (2009). Transformations in dreaming and characters in the psychoanalytic field.
International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 90(2), 209–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-8315.2009.
00131.x
Freud, S. (1912). Recommendations to physicians practising psycho-analysis. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The
standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud, Volume XII (1911-1913):
The case of Schreber, papers on technique and other works (pp. 109–120). Hogarth Press.
Glickson, J., & Ohana, A. B. (2011). From trance to transcendence: A neurocognitive approach. The
Journal of Mind and Behavior, 32(1), 49–62.
Goswami, A. (2008). God is not dead: What quantum physics tells us about our origins and how we
should live. Hampton Roads.
Grof, S. (2000). Psychology of the future: Lessons from modern consciousness research. State University
of New York Press.
Marin, J. (2009). ‘Mysticism’ in quantum mechanics: The forgotten controversy. European Journal of
Physics, 30(4), 807. https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/30/4/014
Marks-Tarlow, T., & Shapiro, T. (in press). Synchronicity, acausal connection, and the fractal
dynamics of clinical practice. Psychoanalytic Dialogues.
Nichols, D. E., Johnson, M. W., & Nichols, C. D. (2017, February). Psychedelics as medicines: An
emerging new paradigm. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 101(2), 209–219. https://doi.
org/10.1002/cpt.557
Parnell, L. (2006). A therapist’s guide to EMDR: Tools and techniques for successful treatment. Norton.
Radin, D. I. (2003). Thinking about telepathy. Think, 3(3), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S1477175600000415
Shapiro, F. (2001). Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing: Basic principles, protocols and
procedures (2nd ed.). Guilford.
Stern, D. B. (2013). Field theory in psychoanalysis, part 2: Bionian field theory and contemporary
interpersonal/relational psychoanalysis. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 23(6), 630–645. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10481885.2013.851548
Suchet, M. (2016). Surrender, transformation, and transcendence. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 26(6),
747–760. https://doi.org/10.1080/10481885.2016.1235945
Ullman, M. (2003). Dream telepathy: Experimental and clinical findings. In N. Totton (Ed.),
Psychoanalysis and the paranormal: Lands of darkness (pp. 15–46). Karnac.