The Emergence of the Ego/Self Complementarity and Its Beyond
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study traces the emergence of the ego/selfideain Buddhist experience-based and processoriented thinking (rDzogs-chen). This is thinking that is primarily concerned with understanding and less so with establishing and being satisfied with a theoretical system, one that inevitably remains reductionist and, for this reason, fails to explain or make sense of what matters most to any living system-such as a human being. Because of its dynamic character, rDzogs-chen thinking avoids the pitfall of concretizing the cognitive aspect of the living, variously called a mind, consciousness, ego or self, into some homuncular entity, and of assuming this entity to reside in one's head as a kind of passive spectator. Not only did Buddhist thinking in general, and rDzogs-chen thinking in particular, conceive of"mind" or "consciousness" as a complexity of functions reacting and responding to each other and forming together the idea of an ego/self, but also, in this respect, it anticipated and antedated the findings of modern phenomenology with its differentiation into an ego/self (in small letters) as a limitation of the Self(with a capital letter) that is neither egocentric nor egological nor logocentric. In rDzogs-chen thought even the Self is a barrier that has to be overcome in order to become ek-statically open.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it