Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract God-talk consists of God speaking to humans in revelation, and humans speaking to God in prayer. They are the two forms of the covenantal language spoken between God and humans in general, and specifically between God and the Jewish people. God-talk is an essential component of the languages of all historic cultures. Yet there have been attempts to dismiss God-talk from public discourse, either epistemologically by claiming it is nonsense, or psychologically by claiming it is an invented illusion. Conversely, it is argued here that Jewish God-talk (by no means uniquely) has a logic that regulates how it may and may not be intelligently spoken by its speakers; hence it is not nonsense. And it is argued here that God-talk has always been spoken in human history, that it would be unintelligible in any language whose speakers did not already intend a real referent by the name “God”; hence it is not an invented illusion. This essay is an attempt to retrieve God-talk so that it can be conducted in public discourse, even in secular 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 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 | 0.000 | 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".