The Poetics of Space: A Dialogue Between Gaston Bachelard and Sandplay Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We live in a world where appearance and visibility are very dominant, privacy is often violated and there is hardly any space for the mysterious, the magical, the invisible. Yet, our psyche needs its refuge to intimate corners, where it can find a still point. In his book The Poetics of Space , the French philosopher Gaston Bachelard explores different containers or shelters for our daydreams and our memories. There are many parallels between Bachelard's ideas about reverie and the ideas behind sandplay therapy. Following Bachelard, this paper will deal with the importance of secrets and hidden corners for the soul in our world. The crucial function of the analytic temenos in reconstructing individuality and restoring the merit of the inner world of secrets and reverie will be discussed. Within the analytic encounter, a special focus will be put on the sandtray serving as a temenos within the temenos, where the treasures of the soul can be put into containers, buried, protected and allowed to unfold when the right time arrives. This article is a proceeding from Finding the Stillpoint…at the Crossroads—The 23rd ISST Congress, Ottawa, Canada, 2015.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".