MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1757486726 · doi:10.29173/pandpr19831

Epistemological Responsibility and A Candle in the Darkness: A Review of Robert D. Stolorow's Trauma and Human Existence

2010· review· en· W1757486726 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tor‐Johan Ekeland

Bibliographic record

VenuePhenomenology & Practice · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCandleDarknessPhilosophyPsychoanalysisArtEpistemologyPsychologyAstronomyPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Philosophical Reflections, Robert D. Stolorow presents his work as an inquiry that interweaves "the conceptuality of emotional life in general and emotional trauma in particular," focusing particularly on "the possibility that emotional trauma is built into the constitution of human existence" (p.xi).Stolorow's inquiry is relevant not only to emotional trauma, but also advances our understanding of mental suffering and illnesses.Metatheoretical perspectives do not necessarily offer profound questions; they instead go straight to the heart of what may be called the "epistemological torment" in Western psychiatry.Initially, however, as I reflected on this book and on these questions, and the deep thinking they imply, my skepticism grew, since they were all to be handled in a very slim volume of a meager 62 pages.Further compounding my initial impression that this book did not delve into its subject matter in a sufficiently in-depth manner was the fact that Stolorow interweaves unwieldy theoretical considerations together with a deeply personal narrative.How can the personal become epistemologically relevant?My initial hunch, while dipping into the book, was that great questions usually accompany great ambitions, but on a first reading one could claim this book seemed to be all out of proportion.However, the author has carefully integrated theoretical and philosophical concerns, and his own experiences of traumatic loss demonstrating the point from Husserl -beyond subjectivity we can reach something common to all humankind.Stolorow is a psychoanalyst and clinical professor of psychiatry at the UCLA School of Medicine, and has published extensively on the relationship between psychoanalytic theory and practice on the one hand, and philosophical questions on the other.He is well known for his works on the theoretical reformulation of orthodox psychoanalysis in books like Faces in a Cloud (1979), Structures of Subjectivity (1984), Psychoanalytic Treatment: An Intersubjective Approach (1987, with Brandchaft), and Context of Being (1992, with Atwood).Noting Stolorow's track record, and being aware of his credentials in philosophy, including clinical psychology and in psychoanalysis, I suppressed my initial scepticism.I decided to give Stolorow's work a chance.Trauma and Human Existence is Volume 23 in the "Psychoanalytic Inquiry Book Series," and consists of seven fairly easy to read chapters.Each chapter, moreover, can function as a separate essay independent of its place in the book.The accessibility of the author's writing is supported by his easy alternation between clinical and autobiographical vignettes, consistently guided as it is by theoretical and philosophical questions.However, this initial sense of readability is rather deceptive, because easy to read does not always mean easy to understand in-depth.I discovered that the intellectual challenge increases in Chapter 5, entitled Trauma and the "Ontological Unconscious," where Stolorow opens with no less than five quotations from the philosophers Hans-Georg Gadamer, Ludwig Wittgenstein,

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.010
Science and technology studies0.0030.015
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.377 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhenomenology & PracticeSame topicPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207