"The Packed Reality of Heaven": C.S. Lewis's Imaginative Re-education of the Modern Pilgrim
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How to think of Heaven then, which Lewis says “is, by definition, outside our experience,” when the fact is that “all intelligible descriptions must be of things within our experience” is a question that Lewis took seriously, especially since the scriptural imagery “[a]t first sight . . . chill[ed], rather than awake[ned], [his] desire.” He asked how a “typical modern” like himself might interpret the heavenly concept of glory. The first idea of fame suggested to him hellish competition; the second idea of brightness suggested the “ridiculous” image of becoming “a kind of living electric light bulb.” Indeed, he contends that the “disease” of the “discrepancy” between “Spirit and Nature” within us makes it difficult for Christians themselves to reconcile the idea of eternal life in Christ and bodily life. He emphasizes, “The destiny of redeemed man is not less but more unimaginable than mysticism would lead us to suppose—because it is full of semi-imaginables which we cannot at present admit without destroying its essential character.” In part then, the burden of unbelief is tied to a failure of the imagination.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".