The valuable thing about President Hall's communication is that the fundamental distinction is brought out between two groups of workers in psychopathology. I should be inclined to divide the people in this room into what might be termed emotional monists and emotional pluralists. The Freudian theory is in general a theory of emotional monism and therefore fundamentally must satisfy a great many of the Hegelian tenets. Hence, perhaps Dr. Putnam's adherence to both Hegel and Freud. Now as I understand it, what Dr. Prince wants is an emotional pluralism such as might well be founded upon the data in MacDougall's "Social Psychology" and in Shand's work on "The Foundations of Character." This view of emotional pluralism is one which I should myself be compelled to hold. We must remember, however, that the work of Cannon on various types of emotion may possibly show that different emotions which look vastly unlike (e. g. fear and rage) may be in some sense equivalents. Fear may be equivalent to rage much as different types of energy in the physical universe are equivalent to one another. The emotions may be interchangeable in some sense so that it might be possible that sex emotion and the emotion of fear are translatable. In this way there might be constructed a fundamental monism of emotion in the same sense that energetics is a science which unifies electricity, heat, magnetism, etc. It would not seem to me, however, appropriate to identify all kinds of emotion with the sexual.