A Psychological Commentary on the Article: Untangling Spiritual Contradictions Through the Psychology of Lived Paradox: Integrating Theological Diversity in the Old Testament with Durand’s Framework on the Imaginary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tension of integrating proactivity and passivity in response to ever changing situations in the world can be addressed from multiple disciplines.The article Untangling Spiritual Contradictions Through the Psychology of Lived Paradox: Integrating Theological Diversity in the Old Testament with Durand's Framework on the Imaginary addresses the healthy integration of proactivity and passivity both from a twofold (theological and anthropological) perspective.It can be further enriched with contemporary empirical findings in the domain of psychology.To summarize the theological perspective of this integration, the article explored how the theological stream of Wisdom Theology in the Old Testament emphasizes choice, training and discipline, diligent pursuit, discerning the righteous and the wicked, and divine justice and theodicy while the theological stream of Promise Theology emphasizes building trust in God, expectant passivity, God's protection, ceasing from anxiety, and safety in God.In terms of the anthropological perspective of this integration, the article outlined how the construct of the imaginary is relevant to one's relationship with God as well as others, as it is a dynamic force that creates images and symbols and is represented by particular verbs and actions.The Heroic Imaginary Structure of the human imaginary, ̶ characterized with the verbs 'to distinguish', 'to separate', 'to ascend', and 'to purify', ̶ emphasizes actualizing an outcome, striving, initiative and action, separating good and evil, and conquering one's obstacles.The Mystical ('intimist') Imaginary Structure, ̶ characterized with the verbs to confound, to descend, to possess, and to penetrate ̶ emphasizes intimacy, passivity, refuge as a fortress, peaceful rest, and relaxation 1,2 .The following tables (A and B) outline the parallels between these theological and anthropological analyses on the integration of proactivity and passivity 3 .Table A: Parallels Between Wisdom Theology and the Heroic Structure of the Imaginary Wisdom Theology Heroic Imaginary Structure Choice Actualizing an Outcome Training and Discipline Striving Diligent Pursuit Initiative and Action (and Production) Discerning the Righteous and the Wicked Separating Good from Evil Divine Justice and Theodicy Conquering One's Obstacles
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.034 | 0.044 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".