A third trend has been interdisciplinary, building on Nabokov's own claim (based on his work as an entomologist) to have bridged the gap between the two cultures of literature and science, on the questions posed by his extreme antipathy to psychoanalysis, and particularly on the varied aesthetic, metaphysical, and religious issues raised by his work. The first two topics were the subject of the 1984 session on "Nabokov and the Passion of Science" and the 1986 panel devoted to "Nabokov on Freud and Freud on Nabokov," though the debate with psychoanalysis would surface again in papers drawing on Lacan that were presented in 1989 and 1992. The interlinked issues of Nabokov's aesthetics, metaphysics, and religion have been an especially lively topic, in part because on the surface Nabokov seems to violate the Russian tradition of using fiction to address the "big questions," in part because his self- proclaimed aestheticism is liable to misinterpretation in an Anglo-American setting, and in part because his wife Véra insisted on the crucial role in all his work of "potustoronnost'" (transcendence, or reaching toward another world) in her preface to a posthumous collection of Nabokov's Russian poetry (Stikhi, 1979). Following these various impulses, the society has organized sessions on "Nabokov, Philosophy, and the Arts" in 1987, on "Nabokov and Religion?" in 1993, and on Nabokov's provocative formula of "Aesthetic Bliss" in 1994. The issue of interdisciplinarity was also raised by a paper in the 1989 session on "Approaches to Teaching Nabokov."