Bibliographic record
Abstract
BOOK Review 218 675. Asceticism of the Mind by Inbar Graiver. (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2018. Pp. x, 237. $80.00. ISBN 9780 -88844-213-0). This fascinating book provides an in-depth look at the spiritual practices with which, assisted by grace, early monastics in Egypt, Gaza, and Sinai struggled to train and purify their minds and attention in order to seek union with God. What makes this exploration of the subject unique is that the author seeks to engage it from two distinct perspectives: that of history and that of contemporary cognitive research. She examines monastic attentiveness in light of what neuroscience and psychology have discovered about attention. While such an examination risks presenting monastic practice as mere psychology, the author succeeds in preserving the integrity of monastic spiritual practice, while drawing new insights from cognitive studies. At the heart of this book is the quest of early Christian monks to keep their attention focused on God through repeating the name of Christ, a scriptural prayer, or a prayer word. When their attention wandered they were instructed simply to return to their word or prayer. From the perspective of cognitive psychology, the effort to fully focus on God requires simultaneously ridding the mind of other thoughts or "suppression." While great emphasis is placed here on cognitive studies on suppression, it would seem to this reviewer that in practice the focus is on staying attentive to God rather than ridding the mind of thoughts. Cognitive studies demonstrate that the very watchfulness required by this process can bring more unwanted thoughts to consciousness. Add stress, anxiety, or fatigue, which consume cognitive resources, and the potential for mind-wandering increases. Thus, while failure in attentiveness to God could sometimes be attributed to laziness, more often it was due to well-intentioned but ineffective efforts. Evil thoughts could lead to anxiety, which rendered all efforts futile. While monks slept little in order to enhance their vigilance and watchfulness, fatigue reduced their cognitive resources for attentiveness. The desert fathers knew "from their own experience . . . that an anxious teeth-gritting effort to repel evil thoughts and the demons that lurk behind them is ineffective and even counterproductive" (pp. 123–124). Thus they advised not answering or trying to contradict the thought but returning to prayer.Through grace and continuous practice, initial faltering attempts gradually became a state of habitual prayer. Current cognitive studies corroborate this showing that "the intentional process of attention 219 ABR 70:2 – JUNE 2019 increases in automaticity with training and so becomes progressively less conscious, less effortful, and less susceptible to interruption" (p.118). Beyond routine struggles in developing attentiveness toward God, early monks sometimes faced what the author calls "demonic siege" (p. 131). Mark the Monk describes this as "a demonic assault in the form of a single thought of something evil, which dominates the mind . . . Even if the individual hates the thought, it persists with great tenacity" (pp. 129-130). The author draws parallels between this and what present psychology refers to as obsession and obsessive-compulsive disorder, but distinguishes between the internal origins of obsession and the external agency of demonic siege. And while obsessive-compulsive disorder is not presently viewed as a spiritual or moral state, demonic siege generated a profound sense of separation from God. The book concludes by describing three strategies by which early monks overcame afflictive thoughts. First, they disclosed their thoughts to a spiritual father. Second, when disclosing these thoughts, they used a phrase such as, "the thoughts tell me" rather than "I am thinking" or "my thoughts." This enabled them to distance themselves from their thoughts rather than identifying with them. Finally, more advanced monks were taught to observe the pattern of their thoughts, noting when they intensified or weakened, how they were connected, and what thought followed another. This observation dissolved and destroyed afflictive thoughts. I have discussed some of the main insights of this book. Readers will discover many interesting anecdotes that elucidate these insights as well as further analysis from the perspectives of neurology and cognitive psychology. One disappointment I had in reading this book was that the author evidenced no awareness that there are still...
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.010 |
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".