The Transformative Effect of Seeking the Eternal: A Sampling of the Perspectives of Two Great Muslim Intellectuals—Ibn-Ĥazm and Al-Ghazāli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Muslim intellectuals during medieval times had an enormous appetite for the study of the mental apparatus, delving into metaphysical discussions and debating the methods of harmonizing their discoveries with the basic tenets of orthodox theology. Most such thinkers wore many hats, being physicians, theologians, philosophers, and politicians, among others. The richness of the literature of that era makes it impossible to confidently conclude that a unified model for psychological transformation exists. This article attempts to arrive at the hypothesis that such a model does indeed exist, even if difficult to prove. To support this hypothesis, some of the works of two of the greatest minds of the 11th century, Ibn-Ĥazm and Al-Ghazāli, will be sampled and contrasted. Ultimately, both scholars reach conclusions that share a common theme. For both of them, seeking the Eternal of the after-life and abrogating the temporary present is an essential component of each of their models of transformation. The road to such a goal is traveled very differently by each scholar, and both approaches appear to reflect what only a fraction of transformed believers have actually utilized. The majority of transformed individuals are likely to have adopted a model that lies on the median between the two sampled approaches.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".