A Notion of “Immanent Transcendence” and Its Feasibility in Environmental Ethics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The focus of this paper is twofold. The main part is dedicated to an exploration of a possible foundation for a notion of “immanent transcendence” in environmental philosophy. As a foil to constructivist and relativist positions on “nature” as human creation/projection, I discuss nature as a self-emerging process larger than—hence transcendent of—us that is not linked to the supernatural (either religious transcendent power or “higher” metaphysical reality), by considering and building on a phenomenological account of the lived experience of nature, including an acknowledgment of the otherness of nature. This basis of an “immanent transcendence,” though distinct from religious transcendence, might nonetheless be categorized as a form of spirituality, and can be linked to the emergent “spiritual, but not religious” selfidentifi cation. In the final part, having established this framework, I consider its feasibility as a basis for environmental action and ethics.
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 | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.081 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".