“…Now as for the research Eagle cites in his next chapter, I have little to say, mainly because there is far more of it than I can possibly summarize in this review, but I am of course in agreement with his conclusions that (a) there is far more evidence for a descriptive unconscious than for a dynamic unconscious and (b) that evidence for a dynamic unconscious pertains to the kind of shifting awareness of interpersonal events that might produce anxiety that are often the focus of modern psychoanalytic and psychodynamic treatments, with their emphasis on developments in the therapeutic relationship, rather than the deep, drive-related unconscious that was Freud’s predominant concern. My main area of disagreement with Eagle pertains to his dismissal of Silverman’s (Silverman et al, 1982; Silverman & Weinberger, 1985; Weinberger & Silverman, 1990) subliminal activation studies and his failure to mention Shevrin’s (Shevrin et al, 2013; University of Michigan Health System, 2012) debate with Grünberg regarding experimental proof of dynamic unconscious processes. Eagle is correct, I believe, in his argument that Silverman never worked out a good explanation, one rooted in contemporary cognitive science, for his findings that subliminal activation of psychodynamic material affects observable behavior, but nonetheless, this line of research is a major piece of evidence in favor of the operation of dynamic unconscious (Weinberger & Stoycheva, 2019), an idea that Eagle most certainly agrees is essential to psychoanalytic theory, even if significantly modified, in accordance with Eagle’s arguments, from Freud’s original proposals.…”