ANSELM THE FOOL: MEDITATION AND THE JOY OF UNBELIEF IN THE <i>PROSLOGION</i>
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most scholars tend to focus on the metaphysical and epistemological aspects of Anselm of Aosta’s Proslogion and they often consider any meditative features to be of little importance. I will argue that reading the Proslogion as a meditative text can be justified based on the manuscript evidence and its textual history. A careful examination of the manuscript witnesses to this text reveals at least four versions, which enabled different readings of the text. I will argue that one version was a more meditative reading, namely, the first version of the Proslogion . That focus is also attested by the type of texts that travelled with this version from the twelfth to the fifteenth century. Having established the validity of such a reading, I will bring to the surface the features of the Proslogion that make it a meditative text. Of the many possible outcomes focusing on the meditative features of the Proslogion , this essay will explore only one here: the fool of chapter two emerges not as some heretic, pagan, or proto-atheist, with whom Anselm has engaged in intellectual combat. Instead, in the mimetic tradition of meditative texts of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the fool is Anselm himself and, by extension, the reader.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it