Knowing as Holistic Experience: A Challenge to Plato from Jungian Sandplay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plato’s suggestion that pure knowledge, described in his theory of Forms as the archetypal basis of reality, is questioned using the sequence from the key session of a Jungian Sandplay therapy case as an example of direct human experience of the archetype. As was recognized by Jung, a parallel may be drawn between Jungian archetypes and Platonic Forms in that both are primary structures contained and manifested in the phenomenal world. In Sandplay, a patient unable to transcend her quandary through reason is able to find relief from the tension of the arguing opposites within her when she creates an image with her hands, in a state of reverie, responding to an internal impetus governed not by reason alone but by spontaneous, nonverbal sensory experience. The image she creates in this way brings her into a deep relationship with herself and marks the beginning of a newly forming selfconfidence that guides her. This example illustrates the holistic nature of human experience and change processes, in therapy or in any learning context.
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 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.084 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".