Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this essay, I shall make the argument that, although the arts have been the victim of economism and instrumentalism, their power is such that, if only we could truly tap into it, arts can become our healing medicine. But, for the arts to become such medicine, they have to be understood and undertaken in a better light than they conventionally have been in our culture. The conventional understanding equates arts with the domain of the beautiful. This view stems from Western intellectual and artistic traditions, wherein the beautiful and the good are considered two not only distinct but separate qualities and values. Thus, aesthetics has been the pursuit of the beautiful, while ethics is the pursuit of the good. But if we go to Zen or Taoist thought, we encounter a different tradition of intellectual discourse and life practices wherein aesthetics and ethics merge and become two aspects of the same radical (in the sene of the root) human experience, techincally called the 'nonduality' in Buddhist literature. As I shall show, in this radical experience of nonduality lies the key to the resistance against economism and instrumentalism. In nonduality "the preservation of the world," to borrow Thoreau's phrase, lies. Thus, the arts are essential and critical to the planetary survival. Nothing can be further from truth and close to absurdity than the notion that the arts are a luxury item and have primarily recreational and ornamental values.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".