The Tacit Understanding Between the Ancient Religions of the West and the Ancient Cultures of China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work discusses Maimonides’s and Lao Tzu’s understanding of God/Tao. Maimonides is a leading figure in Jewish philosophy that takes a rather different analytical approach to the Torah from his predecessors. Instead of directly taking Torah and related religious books as guidance, Maimonides believes the right way to interpret Torah is to treat the stories in Torah as metaphors and use wisdom given by God to dig out the meaning behind the metaphor. Differently, Lao Tzu does not belong to any religion, while Lao Tzu found his only philosophy of how to live a better life by avoiding possible harm. After Lao Tzu’s analysis of the change of the matter and the observation of the relationships between matters… Lao Tzu has written his famous work – Tao Te Qing. In this book, he tries to teach people the philosophy of Tao to make them live better. By comparing Maimonides and Lao Tzu, I find that there are many similarities between Lao Tzu and Maimonides’s understanding of the transcendent being despite their rather different backgrounds. This essay will focus on three areas: their theories on the creation of the creatures and the inexpressible feature of God/ Tao, and the emotionless nature of God/ Tao.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".