Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this essay, I explore Heidegger’s notion of Gelassenheit and how it relates to Wallace Stevens’s poem “How to Live. What to Do”. I argue that after reading the poem, what is revealed is an idea of education that draws the poet and the philosopher into close proximity. Poetry and thinking can counter learning as a pursuit of knowledge by the means of what Gert Biesta (2013/2016) calls “the new language of learning” (p. 63) and prepare for learning as that which cannot be taught. Language and the use of language is the main focus of my analysis, which aims to outline what I term poetical education. I do this by reading Heidegger’s The Question of Being and its analysis of nihilism and the introduction of placing keywords under erasure. In the essay “Meditative Thought and Gelassenheit in Heidegger’s Thought of the ‘Turn’: Releasing Ourselves to the Original Event of Learning”, James Magrini and I developed the idea of an original event of learning as grounded in Gelassenheit. In the present essay, I draw on our analysis as a way to invoke Gelassenheit in my reading of Stevens’s poem, and how it can stage an alternative to what Biesta calls “learnification” (2013/2016, p. 62).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".