Bibliographic record
Abstract
How do we know that we are in the presence of the sacred?This question has occupied religious thinkers and thinkers about religion for thousands of years.Until recently, those discussions have taken place within the context that the sacred is real; that while it may require extraordinary circumstances to "know" the sacred, few would have disputed the existence of a Being greater than ourselves.As both authors point out, many people today doubt the existence of the sacred.Still others are merely indifferent to the possibility.This book represents the work of two authors who have taken different paths to come to the same conclusion: the sacred is still a significant part of the lives of people in the modern world.In order to reach this conclusion, both authors have also grappled with the similarities and differences between spirituality and religion, acknowledging that either can serve as a positive or negative force in human lives.Both authors claim that we need to have a relationship with the sacred in order to achieve a deeper sense of ourselves as part of a unity.That unity encompasses our sense of the self as it relates to our bodies, our social world, our environment and the metaphysical realm.Both authors also work within the framework of spirituality and healing, making the argument that the appreciation of the sacred can promote the process of achieving inner balance between our emotions and our intellect, and help us heal when that inner balance has been disrupted.When we open ourselves to the possibility of the sacred, both authors argue, we can find sources of hope to our despair that may be caused by political, cultural, or personal problems.The driving passion for the authors is to demonstrate that the sacred has both a presence and a healing power in our society, and that we need to be open to that reality.The reason that we so often are unable to recognize the existence of the sacred is because we have accepted the argument that science and technology are the hallmark of modern thought and both negate the possibility of the sacred.The arguments in this volume present the point of view that science and technology cannot take the place of the sacred, although they can co-exist with the sacred.The two authors approach their arguments from different disciplines and employ different material in their discourse.Constantin Ponomareff brings to our attention great works of literature, music and art as examples of artists who have recognized that "in this existential experience of our spirituality, we may finally come to a deeper and humbler understanding of our place in the universe."Precisely through works of art can we truly appreciate the way in which the sacred functions in our lives.In my view, Ponomareff bases his discussion of art and the sacred on Jungian psychology, and in particular, Carl Gustav Jung's notion that we can Rose Tekel -9789401203203
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.710 | 0.652 |
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".