Mystery: Poetizing by Way of Gelassenheit Toward a Pedagogy of Awe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Common ways of thinking in education revolve around the purposes of science, curiosity and calculative modes of thought, resulting in instrumental methods and ends in education and teacher education. Mystery, defined as physis from ancient Greek metaphysics, which highlights both presence and absence, is typically left out of knowing, teaching and learning. Today’s education can benefit from unique approaches emphasizing mystery as presence and absence through “poetizing” or poetic engagement. Poetic knowledge, meditative thinking and awe provide new ways of experiencing curriculum and pedagogy. Borrowing from Martin Heidegger’s Gelassenheit, or “letting be”, and poetizing after this manner, provides a particular posture for encountering things differently in non-objectified ways. Curiosity and awe in curriculum, emotional responses related to mystery, give insight for showcasing the importance of non-objectification, a re-situated stance toward things in an increasingly technological era. For mystery to take its place in education, it will require a move from calculative thinking to meditative thinking, from curiosity to awe, by way of poetizing (qua Gelassenheit).
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".