Mindfulness for adulting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper calls for ethical responsibility to manifest a holistic, embodied, and deeply relational vision of what it means to actualise fuller human flourishing than how we, humanity as a whole, are behaving currently. A thesis is presented that humanity is experiencing an arrest within the trajectory of species’ psychological development and that mindfulness cultivation can facilitate transformation. This thesis comes with a proviso that mindfulness needs to be taken up differently from the dominant discourse around it. A case is made that contemporary mindfulness is most often implicitly and explicitly fuelled by conventional “ordinary consciousness” whose primary function is survival supported by the fear-driven fight–flight–freeze neural assemblage. Suggestions are made that mindfulness be understood as a way of accessing non-ordinary consciousness that sees the world relationally in terms of expansive self-other integration. For this, further suggestions are made that mindfulness be placed back into a larger context, for example, practice-based Buddhist philosophy and psychology, that addresses existential suffering and proffers a comprehensive holistic educational programme. Such a programme cultivates human potential and supports relationally generous and generative human flourishing. As a concrete practice proposal for transitioning into a relational paradigm, inner work is proposed and illustrated with examples.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".