The divine ordinary: what the West can learn from Chinese philosphy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is a work of what I call ???critical comparativism.??? I compare civilizations\nand try to use the results to suggest more critical ways of thinking about our own\nsociety. One of the benefits of comparativism is that it allows us to be critical of a\nsociety by referring to actual examples of alternative ways of doing or thinking found\nin other societies. It undercuts the charge of utopianism often laid on proponents of\nchange in a given society. If we can point to actual, living examples of alternative\npractice, it is therefore uncontestable that it can be done, and that it is at least possible\nthat it will turn out over time to be a good decision. One of the most distressing\naspects of, for example, the health care debate in the U.S. has been the near absence\nof a comparative perspective. While Canada???s system was sometimes cited, generally\ninaccurately, in the debate, the public discussion was carried on as if no other society\nhad ever tried to build or reform their health care system. It was this lack of\ncomparativism that led to the relatively trite level of discussion and far from optimal\nresult.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".