THE ROLE OF INTENTIO IN AUGUSTINEâS UNDERSTANDING OF THE SOULâS ASCENT TO GOD: from de animae quantitate to de trinitate \n
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Augustineâs strategic use of the activity of intentio, (the volitional and tensional activity of directing the mindâs attention) as he begins to reflect on ascending to the one God who is Trinitarian, transforms intentio from an aspect of anthropological and psychological analysis into an integral part of a Trinitarian theory of cognition, whereby intentio becomes assimilated to the will, which in Augustineâs thought is connected with the Holy Spirit. This thesis argues that there is a trajectory in Augustineâs use of intentio from its barely discernible traces in de animae quantitate to its explicit development in de trinitate. The stages of ascent in an. quant. form the framework of this thesis and they do so against old advice that an. quant. ârepresents an immaturity soon outgrown and it ought not to be quoted in illustration of the characteristically Augustinian positions.â (Burnaby 1960, 63) Instead, while mindful of Augustineâs own statement that âI am among that number who write while developing and develop while writing,â (ep. 143:2) the approach here takes its cue from the general reinstatement of the early works recently effected by Carol Harrison (2006) in the hope that an. quant. be specifically rehabilitated. Using a methodology which is largely, though not exclusively exegetical, we will move in each chapter from a description of the stage of ascent in an. quant. and the power of the soul involved, to a consideration of the significance and role of intentio as we find it in trin. The overall conclusion will be that the volitional, directional and tensional aspects of intentio converge to make intentio a unifying theme in Augustineâs understanding of the soulâs ascent to God.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".