The Comparative Studying of Rumi and Bonaventura Mystical Epistemology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="apa">The purpose of this paper is to consider most critical issues of mystical epistemology in Rumi and Bonaventura once the views on subject, reality of the world, and the possibility of knowledge were expressed. This research referring works of Rumi and Bonaventura studies this issue through a descriptive-analytical method. Rumi and Bonaventura recognized three stages of human recognition realm including sensory, rational and illuminative recognitions. They both believe that achieving real knowledge and recognition requires revelation in addition to reason. In their perspective, the spirit is the unique intuitive and mystical knowledge tool such that Bonaventura extends its epistemology based on illumination referring this stage the supreme level, intuition and unity to God. At this stage, human being is not merely a definite subject rather an external phenomenon influencing knowledge trend. Rumi states that real treasure between God and world is only recognized by mysticism not through discussion and rational reasoning.</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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".