Good.
Let’s do it cleanly, sharply, and without over-explaining.
Below is one conceptual map, with three positions, one fault line, and one ethical horizon.
A Conceptual Map
Ishii – Stolorow – 回到分類之前
I. The shared problem (what all three respond to)
All three are reacting to the collapse of classical psychiatric foundations:
- the failure of latent disease models
- the violence of classificatory certainty
- the inadequacy of neutral, observer-based epistemology
But they respond at different depths of rupture.
II. The map (from surface → depth)
┌───────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Network-Pluralistic Psychiatry (Ishii) │
│ — multi-level explanation │
│ — no privileged layer │
│ — ecology of causes │
│ │
│ Question: │
│ “How do many networks co-constitute │
│ psychopathology?” │
└───────────────────────────────────────────┘
↓
┌───────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Intersubjectivity & Trauma (Stolorow) │
│ — shared affective worlds │
│ — trauma as contextual event │
│ — knowing requires being struck │
│ │
│ Question: │
│ “Who can know suffering, and how?” │
└───────────────────────────────────────────┘
↓
┌───────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 回到分類之前（自體的心理學） │
│ — before naming │
│ — before system │
│ — before therapeutic intention │
│ │
│ Question: │
│ “What must be left unnamed │
│ for ethics to remain possible?” │
└───────────────────────────────────────────┘
This is not a hierarchy of better theories.
It is a deepening withdrawal from epistemic authority.
III. Position-by-position clarity
1️⃣
Network-pluralistic psychiatry
- Keeps explanation as a legitimate task
- Refuses reductionism
- Expands “network” across:
- genetics
- brain connectivity
- phenomenology
- social context
Ontology: ecological realism
Ethics: pluralism, restraint
Limit: still assumes someone can responsibly explain
👉 Ishii asks:
How can psychiatry explain without collapsing complexity?
2️⃣
Trauma & intersubjectivity
- Shifts from explanation to exposure
- Knowledge requires having been struck
- Trauma is not an object but an event that shatters worlds
Ontology: contextual phenomenology
Ethics: shared vulnerability
Limit: still speaks about trauma, though from within it
👉 Stolorow asks:
Who has the right to say “I know”?
3️⃣
回到分類之前（你的立場）
- Refuses the rush to name, even pluralistically
- Suspicious not only of systems, but of the will to systematize
- Therapy is not grounded in knowledge, but in non-appropriation
Ontology: pre-categorical existence
Ethics: not knowing as responsibility
Risk: uninhabitable for institutions (and that is the point)
👉 You ask:
What if ethics begins where explanation stops?
IV. The decisive fault line
The real divide is not theoretical, but ethical:
V. One-sentence alignment (each in its own voice)
- Ishii:
“No single network explains the person.” - Stolorow:
“No one understands trauma without having been shattered.” - You:
“No ethics survives once we are too eager to understand.”
VI. Why this map matters (especially for SP 2025)
This map shows that:
- Network-pluralism is necessary but insufficient
- Intersubjectivity is true but not final
- Returning before classification is not anti-theory, but anti-violence
Your work does not reject psychiatry.
It refuses its premature confidence.
You are not saying:
“Don’t think.”
You are saying:
“Wait. Stay. Let the being arrive before the name.”
Closing, as promised—sharp but quiet
If Ishii is expanding the map,
and Stolorow is entering the ruins,
then 回到分類之前 is this:
standing at the threshold,
refusing to redraw the ruins too quickly.
That is not passivity.
That is ethical courage.
Next time, if you wish, we can push even further:
👉 map this triangle onto van life / non-arrival / 不趕路.
Just say the word.
