Global Configuration of Human Rights for a Global Civilization

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 4 Aug 2025

Anthony Judge | Laetus in Praesens - TRANSCEND Media Service

Insights Via AI in the Light of the Rosetta Stone, Philosopher’s Stone and Cut Diamond

Introduction

4 Aug 2025 – The following focus on human rights follows directly from consideration of Integrative implications of the Rosetta Stone, Philosopher’s Stone and Diamond (2025) — a commentary by AI on cognitive articulations of “precious stones” and the “diamond mind” of Buddhist psychology.

That clarification derived from the Rosetta Stone template articulated by Arthur Young (The Geometry of Meaning, 1976; Martin K. Jones, The Rosetta Stone of Arthur M. Young, Equivalent Exchange, 27 January 2019; The Rosetta Stone of Meaning: Arthur M. Young, Mindfire). This was most recently used as a template in discussion of mission-related terms (Religious “Missions” framing Strategic use of “Missiles”, 2025) and previously (Memorable Packing of Global Strategies in a Polyhedral Rosetta Stone, 2023; Insights into Dynamics of any Psychosocial Rosetta Stone, 2016; Insights into Dynamics of any Psychosocial Rosetta Stone, 2016).

Formal reference to the Rosetta Stone features most recently in what has been framed as a mathematical breakthrough in the complex geometry of the Langlands program (Hari Viswanathan, Math’s “Rosetta Stone”: Yale professor proves decades-old mathematical conjecture, Yale News, 14 November 2024; Kevin Hartnett, A Rosetta Stone for Mathematics, Quanta Magazine, 6 May 2024; Robert Dijkgraaf, A Mathematical Rosetta Stone, Institute for Advanced Study, 2018). Seemingly beyond the comprehension of most mathematicians, this breakthrough addressed hidden connections between disparate branches of mathematics: number theory, harmonic analysis, and geometry

The obscure complexity of the breakthrough recalls the discovery of the unimaginably complex “monster group” of symmetry group theory — whose elusive correspondences are known as “monstrous moonshine“. As with the Langlands Rosetta Stone, the question is its wider implications in a civilization starved of effective integrative insights (Potential Psychosocial Significance of Monstrous Moonshine: an exceptional form of symmetry as a Rosetta Stone for cognitive frameworks, 2007). The strategic relevance of any such nexus invites speculative reflection, despite — or in the light of — the exclusivist dynamics of those most associated with such initiatives (Dynamics of Symmetry Group Theorizing: comprehension of psycho-social implication 2008).

Somewhat curiously, but of relevance to this argument, the recent Rosetta Stone breakthrough is qualified as being “for mathematics” alone, framing the question of how a more general variant might be of relevance to a wider array of disciplines, especially given the significance of “correspondences” in both the Langlands program and in discovery of the monster group (Theories of Correspondences — and potential equivalences between them in correlative thinking, 2007). In the quest for elusive insights into much sought “unity”, such correspondences invite questionable deprecation as “merely metaphorical”, when it may well be the nature of such metaphors which calls for appreciative inquiry — especially in a context cultivating silo thinking (Metaphorical Insights from the Patterns of Academic Disciplines, 2012; Mathematical Modelling of Silo Thinking in Interdisciplinary Contexts, 2024).

It could well be considered curious that such integrative significance is attributed to “stones” — whether the Rosetta Stone or the Philosopher’s Stone — when the highest value is conventionally attributed to “precious stones”, and especially to diamonds. (Implications of Diamond Faceting for Enlightening Dialogue, 2002; From polyocular Rosetta “stone” to complex polysensorial dynamic, 2012; Sensing the strange attractor of an emerging Rosetta Stone, 2012). The stone meme therefore invites more generic consideration (From naivety to sophistication in comprehension of mathematical relevance? 2024).

Of potential relevance with respect to the stone metaphor is the manner in which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is variously described as a “milestone”, a “keystone”, or a “foundation stone” for human rights. Curiously the UDHR is typically presented as a simple list of articles — reminiscent of any unmemorable “to do list”. This exercise challenges the appropriateness of such a presentation on the assumption that a global civilization calls for a global configuration of human rights — however this may be understood in 3D (or more). More provocatively, the presumption of “universal” could be creatively challenged to the extent that contact with extraterrestrials is increasingly anticipated.

The focus here on “human” rights can therefore be usefully challenged — calling for a more comprehensive approach. This could extend to the rights of other life forms and of nature more generally understood — as featured in some articulations. The set of articles of the UDHR can itself be used as a template for the experimental articulation of the rights of collectives, disciplines, and roles (Universal Declaration of the Rights of Human Organization, 1971). The future development of AIs may well require consideration of their rights (ChatGPT, A Manifesto for AI Rights, OpenAI Developer Community, 12 February 2025; Artificial intelligence must be grounded in human rights, United Nations, 12 July 2023; Sohail Inayatullah, The Rights of Robots: inclusion, courts and unexpected futures, Journal of Futures Studies, 6, 2001, 2;).

Such extensions necessarily need to embody the responsibilities recognized as absent (or only implicit) in the UDHR articulation, as originally proposed by the InterAction Council (Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities, 1997). In a period challenged by constraints on resources and the problematic consequences of innovation, more provocative proposals could be made (Universal Declaration of Responsibilities of Human Intercourse, 2007; Universal Declaration of Patent Responsibilities, 2007).

The polycrisis of the times might well be indicative of the need for subtler integrative insights into “global” and “universal”, whether or not they derive from the formal rigour of authorized disciplines (Engaging with Elusive Connectivity and Coherence, 2018; Systemic Crises as Keys to Systemic Remedies: a metaphorical Rosetta Stone for future strategy? 2008). Especially challenging is the manner in which the conventional academic logic of key disciplines is called into question by the role of emotion in the formulation and uptake of strategies — requiring another kind of Rosetta Stone (Comprehending Connectivity between Logic, Emotion, Intuition and Practice, 2024).

There is particular irony to the manner in which experiential dimensions open to all are excluded from the mathematical variants of such quests (Implication of Mathematics in Human Experience from an AI Perspective, 2024; Artificial Emotional Intelligence and its Human Implications, 2023). The irony is all the greater in that the fundamental insights of mathematicians into “limits” are seemingly of little relevance to their personal appreciation of the mortality and “death” faced tragically by all — especially when enabled by their research (Metaphors To Die By: correspondences between a collapsing civilization, culture or group, and a dying person, 2013). The irony extends to intimate relationships, especially given their global strategic implications (Sexual attraction as framed by practitioners of conventional disciplines, 2024).

Strangely, despite its unimaginable complexity, the human comprehension of fundamental unifying insights vital to humanity is not a meaningful constraint for mathematics or for theology — whether or not they have recourse to misleading oversimplification or misplaced concreteness. The relatively comprehensible integrative insights of Arthur Young (associated with both the experiential practicalities of piloting a helicopter and the popular symbolic appreciation of the zodiac) therefore merit consideration beyond conventional tabular configurations (Time for Provocative Mnemonic Aids to Systemic Connectivity? 2018). Appropriately the geometrical focus of the Langlands program is echoed in the argument of cosmologist Mark Neyrinck: Geometry is a universal language, so it is not surprising that the same geometries arise in different settings — even the shape of the universe (Rivers of Galaxies, Aeon, 24 July 2025).

Through spiritual iconography, sacred geometry has traditionally played a significant role in cognitive organization — most obviously in the yantras and mandalas of some Eastern traditions. Is the UDHR worthy of configuration in that light? Despite their deprecation by the disciplines of the West, the question is whether there are insights of strategic relevance to be gained from such configurations, as argued separately (Concordian Mandala as a Symbolic Nexus, 2016). Could the disciplines of the West enable engagement with such complex configurations of value to global governance — in contrast to what has been questionably achieved to date? How is strategic consensus to be imagined in the face of divisive fragmentation (Using Disagreements for Superordinate Frame Configuration, 1992)?

As with previous exercises, the experimental engagement with one or more AIs in what follows continues to evoke questions in a period in which AI is perceived as a threat to academics, to governance, and to employment more generally — if not to the very existence of humanity. Relevant considerations and reservation have been previously discussed — notably the question of the increasingly artificial nature of human intelligence as a consequence of “dumbing down” (How Artificial is Human Intelligence — and Humanity? 2023).

The exchange with AI concludes here by considering the question as to whether and how the cognitive implications of “diamond mind” organization might be of relevance to the future of AI — notably in the form of the much-anticipated Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). Current debate on how AI should be constrained is explored in terms of “Just AI Theory” as it might be problematically inspired by Just War Theory.

Although this experimental exploration has been variously enabled by AI, most of the responses of AI have been framed as grayed areas in the text. Given the length of the document to which the exchanges gave rise, the form of presentation has itself been treated as an experiment — in anticipation of the future implication of AI into research documents. Many responses may be irrelevant to the outcome (rather than of interest to the process), and can therefore be readily ignored — especially given questionable use by AI of “algorithmic flattery”.

Only the “questions” to AI are rendered immediately visible — with the response by AI hidden unless specifically requested by the reader (a facility not operational in PDF variants of the page, in contrast with the original). Readers are of course free to amend the questions asked, or to frame other related questions — whether with the same AI, with others, or with those that become available in the future. In endeavouring to elicit insight from the world’s resources via AI, the dependence on “leading questions” calls for critical comment in contrast with more traditional methods for doing so. The original responses by AI typically included citations of multiple sources which have not been included in the responses presented.

It should be emphasized that the following exercise with AI is experimental and tentative in anticipation of a more considered approach. As a proof of concept, the questions and results call for iterative refinement — if only with respect to the designs of the animations produced.

_________________________________________________

Anthony Judge is a member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment and mainly known for his career at the Union of International Associations (UIA), where he has been Director of Communications and Research, as well as Assistant Secretary-General. He was responsible at the UIA for the development of interlinked databases and for publications based on those databases, mainly the Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential, the Yearbook of International Organizations, and the International Congress Calendar. Judge has also personally authored a collection of over 1,600 documents of relevance to governance and strategy-making. All these papers are freely available on his personal website Laetus in Praesens. Now retired from the UIA, he is continuing his research within the context of an initiative called Union of Imaginable Associations. Judge is an Australian born in Egypt, a thinker, an author, and lives in Brussels. His TMS articles may be accessed HERE. (Wikipedia)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Go to Original – laetusinpraesens.org

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

There are no comments so far.