Working Through Existential Anxiety Toward Authenticity: A Spiritual Journey of Meaning Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All human beings experience life’s givens or the ultimate concerns of death, isolation, freedom, and meaninglessness. Whether there is awareness or not, these givens influence how individuals interact and relate to self, others, and the world. Failure to understand these existential concerns can lead an individual to behave inauthentically in relation to her core values. This article will illuminate the role of existential psychotherapy in revealing the effect of life’s givens on an individual’s lived experience. First, this article will ground existential therapy within its philosophical roots. Second, it will highlight the use of the phenomenological method in existential psychotherapy as a means of building a strong therapeutic alliance between therapist and client. Attention to the client’s lived experience in a value-free way will provide space for the client to work through his or her existential anxiety toward authenticity. The client, in feeling deeply understood will be able to respond more authentically to the therapeutic relationship and by extension to others in his or her world. A framework for understanding how life’s givens can manifest across the physical, personal, social, and spiritual life dimensions are presented. This framework is used to conceptualize a case study of a client struggling with existential issues.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".