Here is the email in which Moran cancels me.

Dear August,

                Well I seem to have really touched a nerve with my discussion of the ‘Principle of Constancy’ in Freud.  First you denied that there is any mention of it in Laplanche and Pontalis.  Then I sent you the whole article that they devote to it, describing what they claim to be its central role in Freud’s ‘economic’ theory of drives.  You did not acknowledge the mistake so I don’t know if we are on the same page here as to what is contained in L&P.  I was further confused by the fact that in responding to points from their article, you write as though you are responding to something I had written myself, rather than L&P. 

                I really never thought I would have to argue for the importance of this principle in Freud’s work.  I never thought that citing the ‘Project for a Scientific Psychology’ would seem an act of betrayal of Freud. In discussions I am familiar with it is read with interest as a fascinating precursor to themes that recur throughout Freud’s career. 

                You tell me that my readings of Freud make you angry, as though Freud is being disrespected.   You say that it is unfair to say that in the ‘Vicissitudes’ paper that he ‘begins with a biological postulate’, and say “You completely miss all of this when you write, "He begins with a biological postulate" I don't think it's "fair."

You quote the following passage from my paper "Freud invites us to “imagine ourselves in the situation of an almost entirely helpless living being, as yet unoriented in the world, which is receiving stimuli in its nervous substance.” The influx of stimuli is a problem for the organism which is easily overwhelmed and which perceives the stimulus as a threat to its integrity, its fragile ego-boundaries.”

And you say “I adamantly disagree with this paraphrase”, where you accuse me of claiming that Freud’s view is that we simply are identical with such a helpless infant.  Of course I do no such thing.  And what you call a ‘paraphrase’ is simply the quotation of Freud’s own words at the beginning of the essay “Let us imagine ourselves in the situation of an almost entirely helpless living being …”.  You say my description of external stimuli as a ‘problem’ for the organism is “completely unwarranted”.  You say I have done Freud a disservice to treat him this way. 

                Disagreement is fine, of course, but not when conducted this way.  I don’t think it will productive for us to have a conversation.  I’m sorry you have put so much time into it, as have I.  But the tone of our exchanges has got more and more hostile and dismissive on your part and I find myself badly misinterpreted by you again and again. I can’t imagine a good podcast conversation where I would have to fight through that the whole time.  There’s not enough time to hope for something like a fresh start.

                I’m very sorry about this.  I admire the work you do, and I’m grateful for your podcast and will continue to listen. 

                                                Best wishes,

                                                                Richard Moran