Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the author’s clairvoyant visions of war and personal experiences of transrational knowledges. It is an account of one Westerner coming to know outside of and despite Western episteme. Transrational knowing was modelled by companion dogs in the author’s childhood and literary figures in early adulthood, and was experienced as a means of self-protection. Western culture fosters skepticism about transrational knowledges, such as psychic visions and telepathic connections. This paper asserts that transrational knowing—whether between humans, other species, or humans and other species—is a valid and readily available form of knowing that exists outside of and in spite of Western episteme. Western understanding of the nature of being, the nature of relating, and the capacity for knowing has been reduced by a particular form of material-oriented rationality that is overdue for re-envisioning. Despite pervasive epistemological pressures, some individuals experience and learn to cultivate seemingly alternative ways of knowing. In doing so, they are turning toward knowledges that arise from an illuminating love and, thus, can be subtle, variable, and highly contextual, unlike knowledges that arise from intellect, which tend to be consistent and predictable. The illusory perception that humans are fundamentally separated from each other and from more-than-human kin constitutes one form of fragmentation that has resulted in ecological and humanitarian disasters. Love, on the other hand, engenders links us with others in ways that both relate to and transcend materiality and the five senses.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".