Scientific, Philosophical, and Practical Elements of Two New Philosophical Group Practices: Dialectic into Dialogos and the Socratic Search Space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we focus on describing two group philosophical practices, Dialectic into Dialogos (“DiD”) and the Socratic Search Space (“SSS”) (“these two practices”). In the discourse domain of philosophical practice, the closest analogue for purposes of contrastive understanding of these two practices is Nelsonian Socratic Dialogue (“NSD”). NSD aspires to reach consensus by extracting a targeted virtue concept from participants’ personal experiences of the virtue, only after which the consensus definition, if attained, is exposed to Socratic cross-examination, with the continued aim of attaining consensus understanding. It is thus primarily a ‘cataphatic’ or ‘positive’ practice. By contrast, DiD aspires to lead participants into an aporetic engagement with a targeted virtue concept. It is thus an ‘apophatic’ or ‘negative’ practice. Lastly, SSS integrates elements of NSD and DiD, forming a hybrid cataphatic/apophatic balance. Both DiD and SSS, but not NSD, are specifically designed to bring about conditions under which participants will enter dialogical flows states (“Dialogos”), affording them transformative experiences of distributed cognition that many practitioners have described as functioning like a “secular séance” that ignites the metaphorical fire that Heraclitus associated with the Logos, the intelligibility of ultimate reality. The cognitive science, philosophical, practical, and related supports for these two practices will be presented, along with some ethical considerations about facilitating them, and considerations about their relevance at this time of the advent of the AI revolution during the already existing meaning crisis.
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 | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.070 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".