Feldenkrais, Freud, Lacan, and Gould: how to love thyself not as thy neighbour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study addresses a form of anthropology of Feldenkrais’s thought. At the beginning of his book The Potent Self, Feldenkrais responds to Christ’s commandment “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Matthew 22:39). Feldenkrais was a great reader of Freud who wrote about this injunction. Sholl shows the connections and differentiations between Feldenkrais, and Freud and Jacques Lacan’s use of this idea. He then connects this thinking to a discussion of the Canadian pianist Glenn Gould’s decision (in 1964) to stop playing the piano in public. He argues that Gould’s decision to re-organize himself through recording was a way to learn to use himself more intelligently (negotiating compulsion), to refine his own self-image, and to enhance his uniqueness. Finally, Sholl examines Gould provides an exemplar for creative artists and performance-training through the development of uniqueness, “potency” and self-awareness better “to love thy neighbour” (conceived as the listening public).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".