MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4394954210 · doi:10.1353/ben.2019.a924049

Asceticism of the Mind by Inbar Graiver (review)

2019· article· en· W4394954210 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Colleen Maura McGrane

Notice bibliographique

RevueAmerican Benedictine Review · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueMedieval and Classical Philosophy
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAsceticismEpistemologyPsychologyPhilosophyCognitive scienceTheology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BOOK Review 218 675. Asceticism of the Mind by Inbar Graiver. (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2018. Pp. x, 237. $80.00. ISBN 9780 -88844-213-0). This fascinating book provides an in-depth look at the spiritual practices with which, assisted by grace, early monastics in Egypt, Gaza, and Sinai struggled to train and purify their minds and attention in order to seek union with God. What makes this exploration of the subject unique is that the author seeks to engage it from two distinct perspectives: that of history and that of contemporary cognitive research. She examines monastic attentiveness in light of what neuroscience and psychology have discovered about attention. While such an examination risks presenting monastic practice as mere psychology, the author succeeds in preserving the integrity of monastic spiritual practice, while drawing new insights from cognitive studies. At the heart of this book is the quest of early Christian monks to keep their attention focused on God through repeating the name of Christ, a scriptural prayer, or a prayer word. When their attention wandered they were instructed simply to return to their word or prayer. From the perspective of cognitive psychology, the effort to fully focus on God requires simultaneously ridding the mind of other thoughts or "suppression." While great emphasis is placed here on cognitive studies on suppression, it would seem to this reviewer that in practice the focus is on staying attentive to God rather than ridding the mind of thoughts. Cognitive studies demonstrate that the very watchfulness required by this process can bring more unwanted thoughts to consciousness. Add stress, anxiety, or fatigue, which consume cognitive resources, and the potential for mind-wandering increases. Thus, while failure in attentiveness to God could sometimes be attributed to laziness, more often it was due to well-intentioned but ineffective efforts. Evil thoughts could lead to anxiety, which rendered all efforts futile. While monks slept little in order to enhance their vigilance and watchfulness, fatigue reduced their cognitive resources for attentiveness. The desert fathers knew "from their own experience . . . that an anxious teeth-gritting effort to repel evil thoughts and the demons that lurk behind them is ineffective and even counterproductive" (pp. 123–124). Thus they advised not answering or trying to contradict the thought but returning to prayer.Through grace and continuous practice, initial faltering attempts gradually became a state of habitual prayer. Current cognitive studies corroborate this showing that "the intentional process of attention 219 ABR 70:2 – JUNE 2019 increases in automaticity with training and so becomes progressively less conscious, less effortful, and less susceptible to interruption" (p.118). Beyond routine struggles in developing attentiveness toward God, early monks sometimes faced what the author calls "demonic siege" (p. 131). Mark the Monk describes this as "a demonic assault in the form of a single thought of something evil, which dominates the mind . . . Even if the individual hates the thought, it persists with great tenacity" (pp. 129-130). The author draws parallels between this and what present psychology refers to as obsession and obsessive-compulsive disorder, but distinguishes between the internal origins of obsession and the external agency of demonic siege. And while obsessive-compulsive disorder is not presently viewed as a spiritual or moral state, demonic siege generated a profound sense of separation from God. The book concludes by describing three strategies by which early monks overcame afflictive thoughts. First, they disclosed their thoughts to a spiritual father. Second, when disclosing these thoughts, they used a phrase such as, "the thoughts tell me" rather than "I am thinking" or "my thoughts." This enabled them to distance themselves from their thoughts rather than identifying with them. Finally, more advanced monks were taught to observe the pattern of their thoughts, noting when they intensified or weakened, how they were connected, and what thought followed another. This observation dissolved and destroyed afflictive thoughts. I have discussed some of the main insights of this book. Readers will discover many interesting anecdotes that elucidate these insights as well as further analysis from the perspectives of neurology and cognitive psychology. One disappointment I had in reading this book was that the author evidenced no awareness that there are still...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,312
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,992

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0090,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,223
Écart entre enseignants0,214 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAmerican Benedictine ReviewMême sujetMedieval and Classical PhilosophyTravaux en français237 207