Context: Although trauma research has advanced immensely, the struggle to find effective treatment for posttraumatic survivors continues. It seems reasonable to say that, at present, our ability to treat those suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is, at the very least, limited. Problem: We argue that in order to confront the current crisis in the study of trauma - evidenced by our limited ability to offer successful treatment for those who develop PTSD - we must return to the subjective experience. Our claim is that only by applying a rigorous method to study the subjective experience will we be able to understand the meaning of neuronal activity associated with PTSD. Method: The neurophenomenological research program (NRP) is a working plan that enables us to create a solid and reliable link between the subjective experience and neuronal activity. Thus, the NRP allows us to (a) delve deeply (and rigorously) into the subjective experience and, by so doing, (b) extract the cognitive mechanism that constitutes the building blocks bridging between the subjective experience and neuronal activity. Following this, we will be able to (c) identify the relevant neuronal activity for the phenomenon under examination. Results: Based on previous studies among posttraumatic survivors, we suggest that two cognitive mechanisms are especially relevant for the study of trauma: the sense of body ownership (i.e., the sense that this is our own body) and the sense of agency (the sense that we control our body. The trade-off between these closely related, yet independent mechanisms is highly significant. We conclude the article with the presentation of a detailed working plan for the study of trauma - one that begins with the subject and returns to the subject. Implications: This article summarizes our struggle to conduct a phenomenological research in the study of trauma and our methodological efforts of the last ten years. It should help the beginner to avoid some mistakes that have been made in this long journey, yet obviously, each one must build their own route. Likewise, we suggest that phenomenologists, brain scientists and clinicians should find a way to cooperate. This shared effort might allow us to improve our understanding of the traumatic experience and its long-term implications; as such, we believe that in this process a better treatment could be developed. That being said, the limitation of our proposal is the difficulty of creating a shared language that bridges these different worlds. Constructivist content: We strongly embraces phenomenological approach together with enactivist/embodied theories.

Key words: Trauma, PTSD, treatment, neurophenomenology, subjective experience, introspection cognitive bridges, brain activity

Abstract: This response confronts some crucial questions raised by the reviewers: (a) Can the phenomenological approach be applied to the study of trauma? (b) What is the exact meaning of the term “traumatic event? (c) Is our phenomenological approach too thin? (d) What is the nature of the proposed cognitive bridge - what else is needed? (e) Is the shared world indeed lacking? (f) Is it possible to control patients with posttraumatic stress disorder in the lab? (g) How is our proposal innovative?

This article presents a unifying theory of the embodied, situated human brain called the Hierarchically Mechanistic Mind (HMM). The HMM describes the brain as a complex adaptive system that actively minimises the decay of our sensory and physical states by producing self-fulfilling action-perception cycles via dynamical interactions between hierarchically organised neurocognitive mechanisms. This theory synthesises the free-energy principle (FEP) in neuroscience with an evolutionary systems theory of psychology that explains our brains, minds, and behaviour by appealing to Tinbergen’s four questions: adaptation, phylogeny, ontogeny, and mechanism. After leveraging the FEP to formally define the HMM across different spatiotemporal scales, we conclude by exploring its implications for theorising and research in the sciences of the mind and behaviour.

Key words: active inference, evolutionary systems theory, hierarchically mechanistic mind, free-energy principle, neuroscience, psychology

Open peer commentary on the article “Applying the Neurophenomenological Approach to the Study of Trauma: Theory and Practice Yochai Ataria, Mooli Lahad & Omer Horovitz The Study of Trauma” by Yochai Ataria, Mooli Lahad & Omer Horovitz. Abstract: While I applaud Ataria and colleagues’ emphasis on the importance of “returning” to the phenomenology of disrupted subjective experiences, here I draw attention to the importance of second-person body-based dynamic engagements with others in bridging the gap between first- and third-person approaches in understanding traumatic experiences. To put it in a provocative slogan: the second person comes first. I will conclude by briefly outlining some implications for therapeutic interventions based on dynamic body-based engagements with others complementing the static, interview-based approaches.

Open peer commentary on the article “An Analysis Procedure for the Micro-Phenomenological Interview” by Camila Valenzuela-Moguillansky & Alejandra Vásquez-Rosati. Abstract: Valenzuela-Moguillansky & Vásquez-Rosati have framed out a detailed and meaningful procedure to analyze micro-phenomenological interviews. Here, we comment on two aspects: the place of verbal descriptions during data collection and analysis, and whether the authors’ analytical procedure can be scaled to large sets of interviews.

Open peer commentary on the article “Meeting You for the First Time: Descriptive Categories of an Intersubjective Experience” by Magali Ollagnier-Beldame & Christophe Coupé. Abstract: I argue that when focusing on first encounters (as the target article does), the unique pristine character of such encounters should be dealt with. In particular, it would be necessary to include as main components surprise, emotions and passivity. Another issue addresses intersubjectivity: While the article considers shared reciprocity as a main invariant feature of intersubjectivity, many phenomenologists have stressed the structural asymmetry of the relation between oneself and the other: am I not the only one who is able to experience (perceive, know) the other? Finally, since the very technique of micro-phenomenological explicitation interviews is based on a clear asymmetry between the interviewer and the interviewee, one may ask to what extent the model of intersubjectivity presented in the article can be representative of first encounters.

Open peer commentary on the article “Meeting You for the First Time: Descriptive Categories of an Intersubjective Experience” by Magali Ollagnier-Beldame & Christophe Coupé. Abstract: Microphenomenological methods provide important sources of experiential data for the investigation of intersubjectivity. We discuss complementarities with the PRISMA method, and surmise that microphenomenological investigations must be articulated within larger epistemic cycles in conjunction with other disciplines. In particular, we suggest that while a certain interpretive bracketing is needed during the interviews themselves, this is not the case for the analysis of the gathered data, which should rely on more explicit theoretical perspectives. We exemplify this point by suggesting patterns that may be looked for in the data from the perspective of participatory sense-making theory.

Open peer commentary on the article “An Analysis Procedure for the Micro-Phenomenological Interview” by Camila Valenzuela-Moguillansky & Alejandra Vásquez-Rosati. Abstract: The target article presents a methodology of micro-phenomenological analysis that gives salience to the idea of researching as an intersubjective meaning-making process. While the methodology belongs to the so-called “first-person research methods,” in my commentary I address the questions of whether it is also part of the traditional qualitative methods and whether it is epistemologically consistent.

Heteronomy informs parts of human sense-making including perceptual and linguistic activities. This article explores Berthoz’s (2012) notion of simplexity in relation to heteronomous aspects of human cognition while it criticises proponents of Active Externalism for presuming that cognitive activity is based in strong autonomy. Specifically, its negative target is the problematic aspects of Varelian Enactivism and Extended Cognitive Functionalism which are linked to the assumption that cognition is conditioned by the cogniser’s strong autonomy. Since active externalists presume that cognition has a clear agent-to-world directionality, they prove unable to account for cases where cognition is informed by novel sensuous inputs. The article presents a positive argument that acknowledges the embodied basis of human sense-making as well as the weak autonomy of the cogniser. It argues that biological simplexity not only enables human enacted perception, but also underlies the embodied habits that shape the perceptual horizon that grants us being-in-the-world. This horizon has a heteronomous dimension which allows us to set up habits, orient ourselves towards unknown parts of our surroundings and engage in conversations. In fact, we are able to communicate with others because linguistic activity originates in enacted perception and sense-saturated coordination.

Key words: phenomenology, languaging, embodiment, habits, heteronomy

Open peer commentary on the article “Meeting You for the First Time: Descriptive Categories of an Intersubjective Experience” by Magali Ollagnier-Beldame & Christophe Coupé. Abstract: While being in total agreement with the bottom-up method used in the target article, I address three issues: the first concerns the intersubjective situation of the explicitation interview itself; the second aims to put the results in the perspective of the traditional phenomenological approaches of intersubjectivity; and the last one considers the analysis of the material, and questions the general categories that emerge from this process.