Bibliographic record
Abstract
In practicality same circumstances under which Christ was born, his dark brother, Antichrist, would be born, and he would work very much same miracles but in order to mankind. (1) C. G. Jung's statement, given during his five-year-long seminar on Zarathustra, may be extended to express parodic structure of Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Out of travesty of Gospels Nietzsche's Antichrist is born to seduce mankind away from paleontological Christian eschatology and into new vision of Overman. Jung called tendency of any concept to give birth to its opposite enandiodromia. (2) same enandiodromic relationship exists between Nikos Kazantzakis's Last Temptation of Christ (3) and story of Jesus Christ as is revealed in New Testament. Both Nietzsche and Kazantzakis employ return to historical moral arena in which counter value-system was born. historical being, writes Mircea Eliade, man killed God, and after this assassination--this 'deicide'--he is forced to live exclusively in (4) In myth, time is reversible: a primordial mythical time made present. (5) In other words, mythological time attempts return back to indeterminable epoch in which things 'originated.' neo-historical modern era, however, is independent of sacred mythological time, and thus return to moment when hierophany (6) gains its meaning constitutes both deconstruction and fixing. death of God poses an enormous threat to life and its capacity for transcendence: Last Man--a modern nihilist. Both Last Temptation's and Zarathustra's return to arena of Christian morals aims to shudder its moral foundations as well as to provide process that overcomes nihilist attitude of Last Man. (7) In essence, both Last Temptation of Christ and Thus Spoke Zarathustra are statements of what we may call historic To clarify this point we first need to understand relationship between myth and history as well as Nietzsche's perception of history. Similar to Nietzsche, Mircea Eliade places history before myth. The historical event in itself, he writes, however important, does not remain in popular nor does its recollection kindle poetic imagination save insofar as particular historical event closely approaches mythical model. (8) One should note at this point importance of what Nietzsche termed mnemotechnics in process of mythologization. In second essay of his Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche discusses in detail importance of memory in emergence of particular morality. If something is to stay in memory, he writes, it must be burned in: only that which never ceases to hurt stays in memory. (9) As an intricate part of mythology is indicative of certain morality that reflects value system of particular society. However, only hurts when this value system is of strict good vs. evil morality. (10) Nevertheless, Eliade perceives the memory of collective as unhistorical: the memory of historical events is modified, after two or three centuries, in such way that can enter into mold of archaic mentality, which cannot accept what is individual and preserves only what is exemplary. This reduction of events to categories and of individuals to archetypes, carried out by consciousness of popular strata in Europe almost down to our day, is performed in conformity with archaic ontology. We might say that popular memory restores to historical personage of modern times its meaning as imitator of archetype and reproducer of archetypal gestures.... (11) tendency to perceive history and mythology as opposites is apparent. History is irreversible and new; Mythology is primordial and archaic. memory does not preserve history--myth does. Is mythology then possible in modern unhistorical era? …
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) | 0.003 | 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".