Psychosemiotic Cycles and the Liturgical Year: A Case Study and Framework for Research.
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 book sketches the outline of a psychosemiotic framework for studying experiences, both within and beyond the Christian liturgy. Rejecting a simple dichotomy between religious/spiritual/mystical experiences (on the one hand) and aesthetic experiences (on the other), it is argued that they are essentially one and the same, and that any distinction between them consists in their contextualization (or discernment) in relation to a body of doctrine - hence the unitary term It is proposed that such experiences are, in fact, altered states of consciousness, induced by deeply concentrated narrowed attention on a personally meaningful stimulus (or symbol) which is perceived as particularly beautiful and pleasurable. Building on this foundation, the book goes on to focus especially on the relationship between aesthetic-religious experiences themselves and conventionalized patterns of narrating them. By means of a detailed case study of the cycle of seasonal prayers in a version of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, the book shows how Martindale’s methodology of narrative pattern - a combination of computer-assisted content analysis and statistical methods for the analysis of time-series data - can be used to explore hypotheses about the psychodynamic relationships between liturgical texts, liturgical and natural time, and the wider Christian tradition of narrating mystical experience. The book's theoretical foundations represent a practical synthesis of ancient and modern thought, and draw on psychological, semiotic, and aesthetic concepts taken from the (neo-)Thomistic and Franciscan scholastic traditions, the writings of the Canadian Jesuit philosopher Bernard Lonergan, and modern psychoanalysis, psychology, and linguistics.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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