Northrop Frye, C. G. Jung, and the Grand Scheme of Things: Mapping the Psycho-Mythical Cosmos
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
Northrop Frye and C. G. Jung both attempted to summarize their respective life’s work in the form of a grand diagram. Remarkably, these two diagrams are virtually identical in both form and content, and they seem to have been formulated independently. Both diagrams take the dual form of an axis mundi with four segments and a circle with four quadrants, and both are defined using the Eastern concept of the mandala. The diagrams attempt to map the development of the Western psyche (Jung) and its expression in myth and literature (Frye) over some two thousand years of the common era. While the scope of these schemas offers a stunning panorama, at their heart are four religious symbols. Frye, following biblical symbolism, called them (1) the Mountain, (2) the Garden, (3) the Cave, and (4) the Furnace. Jung, following certain Gnostic sources, called them (1) Anthropos, (2) Shadow, (3) Paradise, and (4) Lapis. We will journey through this fourfold kaleidoscope and conclude with some reflections on the narrowing of horizons in the contemporary academy of religion. Our current methods, and the objects they reveal, have become largely restricted to only one quadrant in this grand schema: the fourth quadrant, which saw the rise of modern scientific thinking. By using a subordinate category (modern science) to try to understand a superordinate category (religion), it is not surprising that our discipline has lost its way.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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