From the Mystical Unity to the Pantheism (Oneness of Existence)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>In the gnostic literature of Iran and in the Islamic Gnosis, gnosis has been interpreted as an effort to save the individual by accessing to the real unity. <br />The unity, mystical journey (conduct) and the relation of God with creature are considered as three main axes under the theme of unity or the gnostic unity until before the pantheistic gnosis of Ibn Arabi, the concept's explanation and the definition of unity in terminological and lexical terms, expression of unity concept in the non-Islamic gnosis, explanation of unity concept in the Iranian-Islamic gnosis until the period of Ibn Arabi, expression of the way of mystical journey, explanation of mystics' attitude on the subject of mystic unity based on the belief of Gnostics of Khorasan school, expression of God's relation with creature in the Iranian and Ibn Arabi's gnosis are considered as the most fundamental under considering instances of this research work; in addition, a brief explanation on pantheism of Ibn Arabi is also under consideration. The theoretical pillars of exalted unity from the perspective of Ibn Arabi, are existence, entity and manifestation; Ibn Arabi, contrary to his preceding Gnostics doesn't consider the creatures mirageor hallucination. This view is somewhat different from the views of mystics of Khorasan, and Gnosis of Khorasan, the differences that have led to two ways of Conduct (Mystical journey) in gnosis. The scope of this research begins from the third century AD and continues by the end of the seventh century that is the rise of theoretical gnosis based on the Ibn Arabi's pantheistic opinions.</p>
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".