Experiencing Tawḥīd : ibn 'Arabī and the power of imagination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis will examine how the Islamic concept of tawḥid ("monotheism") was understood, and perhaps more importantly, experienced by the 12th/13th Sufi, Ibn 'Arabi (1165-1240), also known as al-Shaykh al-Akbar ("The Greatest Master"). It has been argued that tawḥid is not simply a belief but also an operation, that is to say, a continual process whereby the literal meaning of tawḥid ("asserting oneness") is upheld. This understanding of tawḥid implies a certain dualism which for Ibn 'Arabi is a reflection of the two perspectives which express God's oneness, namely, tanzih ("transcendence"), which literally means "declaring something to be pure and free of something else," and tashbih ("immanence"), of which the literal meaning is "declaring something to be similar to something else." As can be seen, tanzih and tashbih are mutually contradictory and thus present tawḥid as a paradox. However, for Ibn 'Arabi, it is essential to not ignore any one perspective in favor of the other. For him, the paradox can and must be reconciled through the power of khayal, or imagination, which alone has the ability to combine opposites and thus, bridge the gap between tanzih and tashbih , thereby allowing for the experience of tawḥid .
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".