MATERIALISM VERSUS SPIRITUALITY: NEO-VEDANTA APPROACH OF SYNTHESIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human beings are often described as having two opposing (and complemen-tary) elements: Flesh and Soul. We all strive, to a certain extent and according to everybody’s ability, to reach a level where we are satisfied with both elements. This satisfaction is actually an ideal, and seldom do we find people who have reached that level. This estrangement between the two spheres of life, the relationship between materialism and spirituality, is as central a divide as one can imagine. From the remains of our earliest writings, these concepts have been illuminated for us by religious figures, philosophers, novelists, and literary critics, amongst many others. Some have given predominance to matter, while others to spiritu-ality. There have been, however, some philosophers in human history who have tried to strike a balance between the two. One of them is certainly Vivekananda, who stressed the need for perfect synthesis of materialism and spirituality in life. The synthesis of materialism and spirituality has become inevitable to the mo-dern man. The last quarter of the 20th century and the first quarter of the 21st cen-tury have witnessed many transitional changes. Immense progress in science and
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".