Esoteric Approach to the Explication of Concepts of Suffering, Objectified Will (Ego), and Immanent Teleology within the Framework of the Conceptual Idea of Evolutionary Causal Finality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study endeavors to explicate and elucidate, from an esoteric perspective, the potential, prospective, and functional content of such phenomena as suffering, objectified will (with the ego representing the referent of the psychic structure of the subject), and immanent teleology. Drawing upon the philosophical perspectives on suffering and objectified will by German philosopher A. Schopenhauer, as well as referencing the esoteric teachings of American philosopher-mystic F. Merrell-Wolff, the philosophical views on human existence by J.-P. Sartre, the spiritual concepts of Canadian psychologist E. Tolle, and the arguments posited by Aristotle in favor of the existence of a final cause, the study aims to analyze these phenomena. An attempt is made to demonstrate the interconnectedness between the claims of the objectified will, as discussed in philosophical discourse, and the ideas of theoretical physicist S. Hawking in the field of physical sciences, particularly in the evolutionary development of the universe. Through the discourse, immanent teleology, manifested in life itself as an inclination towards eternal peace, is asserted as an a priori form of understanding the world of phenomenal spatiotemporal multiplicity. In contrast, the objectified will strives for the identity of infinite energy density through possession, sole proprietary ownership, and governance over the objects of the universe. These dual directions culminate in liberation through the overcoming or destruction of enslavement, ultimately leading to the annulment of time and space.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".