The Wheel and the Ladder: Freudian and Loewaldian Accounts of Individuation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, I use comparisons of Freud, Loewald, and Plato to explore what it means to individuate and to desire in a world of frustration, pain, and loss. The metaphors of the "wheel" versus the "ladder" present basic images for Freud's tragic conception of a person's emerging into a world of pain, transience and loss, in contrast to Loewald's sense of individuation as an increasing attainment of individual ego and world enrichment, constructed from metabolized grieved objects. I then argue that Plato's Symposium offers comparable visions of the possibilities of love, and that the juxtaposition of Freud and Loewald can be connected to ancient philosophical considerations. The paper begins by examining the implications of the two thinkers' treatments of the "oceanic state" (primary narcissism), then compares these to the speeches of Aristophanes and Socrates/Diotima. The conclusion touches on the relevance of the juxtaposition to the Platonic distinction between philosophy and poetry.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".