Bibliographic record
Abstract
The inclusion of ‘consciousness’ in Michael Bonnett’s paper signals to me that the right place for examination of the ongoing and deepening environmental disasters that humans face is human consciousness itself: the way we think, perceive, and feel, which flows into the way we relate to and act towards nature. Against the still prevailing way of thinking about environmental disaster and crisis, namely locating these problems out there in the environment, I, like Bonnett, and a growing number of others, point to the problematic ‘metaphysics’ of how we humans conceive and perceive nature. Our current ‘environmental problems’ are metaphysical. In support of Bonnett’s paper, I examine the problematic metaphysics (namely, The Mechanical Universe), trace its psycho-neurobiological origin to the authoritarian structure that disempowers human beings to play out domination-submission programming, and suggest learning the way of mutual participation and collaboration characteristic of our immersive experience in nature. In further support of Bonnett’s characterization of nature as ‘self-arising,’ which incidentally is the literal meaning of nature in Chinese (自然), I introduce the Way of Zen as practice of ‘interbeing.’ Interbeing, when practiced, would lead us to experiencing awe and wonder, as in our encounter with nature, restoring a sense of immediacy, presence, and non-discursivity: all central to Zen experience.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".