Beyond both Rhyme and Reason in the Face of Polycrisis?

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 29 Sep 2025

Anthony Judge | Laetus in Praesens - TRANSCEND Media Service

Memorable correspondences between Dante’s poesis, trigrams, genetic codons, triplicities, and polyhedra.

Introduction

Much interest has been evoked by the challenge of AI and the potential of quantum computing. The latter is based on the obscurities of quantum mechanics of which it as been famously asserted by Richard Feynman that if anyone claims to understand quantum mechanics they clearly do not understand quantum mechanics — on which many continue to comment. And yet it clearly “works” as a theory, as so obviously exemplified by the viability of quantum computing.

The question could then be asked of other frameworks deemed to be fundamental to the understanding of reality. For example, is it the case that those claiming to understand deity in any form should be recognized as “not understanding” deity? And yet their understanding clearly “works” — for them. The irony is that the contrasting understandings of deity, notably by the Abrahamic religions seem to have contributed especially significantly to conflict over centuries, and to the current highly fragmented condition of a global civilization society faced with polycrisis (Fundamental Need for Human Sacrifice by Abrahamic Religions, 2018; Root Irresponsibility for Major World Problems, 2007).

Collectively those religions have no viable coherent response to “wicked problems” and polycrisis, despite variously claiming individually to exemplify the requisite coherent understanding. The pattern extends to other domains claiming fundamental insights into coherence, most notably science. The curious feature of each such acclaimed understanding of coherence is that it vigorously and righteously asserts how fundamentally and unquestionably correct is its own understanding — and how necessarily wrong or misguided is any other such understanding, potentially justifying its eradication by any means. This belief clearly informs political strategy and aspirations to global hegemony of any kind — especially at this time in countries acclaiming their religious identity.

Most curiously ironical is the definitive deprecation by science of alternative perspective — effectively colonizing its own future development and precluding the insight of scientists “centuries hence“. Unlike poetry, conventional frameworks seem unable to allow for the manner in which history will ensure they are superceded (Walt Whitman, Centuries Hence, 1860).

Given the current dominant role of Christianity in reinforcing this pattern geopolitically, despite the claims and aspirations of other fundamental frameworks, there is a case for exploring how it has been reinforced over centuries by the remarkably influential poetic articulation of the Trinity by Dante Alighieri (Divine Comedy, 1321). Especially relevant to this exploration is the study of “three wheels”, as a paradoxically imaginative depiction of the Trinity (Arielle Saiber and Aba Mbirika, The ‘Tre Giri’ of Paradiso XXXIII. Dante Studies, 131, 2013). This remarkable interdisciplinary study combines insights from speculative theology, geometry and knot theory, as discussed separately (Borromean challenge to comprehension of any trinity? 2018).

Whilst the “tre giri” study establishes an insightful relation to the elusive cognitive implications of the geometry of Borromean rings, there is a case for recognizing the cognitive value of the aesthetic articulation of memorable coherence in poetic form — in contrast to unmemorable conventional approaches to such framing, most notably by science and in the realm of strategy. That possibility is discussed separately (Poetry-making and Policy-making: arranging a marriage between Beauty and the Beast, 1993; Poetic Engagement with Afghanistan, Caucasus and Iran: an unexplored strategic opportunity? 2009; Improvisation in Multivocal Poetic Discourse: Basque lauburu and bertsolaritza as catalysts of global significance, 2016). Appropriately the potential for challenging hegemony through the aesthetic pattern that connects is also echoed in music (Reimagining the Canon to the Sounds of Cannon Fire, 2024).

Rather than assume the unquestionable adequacy of any particular understanding of coherence — and the fundamental inadequacy of any suggested alternatives — the following exercise, with extensive AI input, explores the possibility of memorably elusive correspondences between Dante’s 3-fold poesis and 3-fold encodings in a disparate array of other domains (trigrams, genetic codons, triplicities, and the like). Particular use is made of the characteristics of the Platonic polyhedra which have been a formative inspiration over millennia for science, religion and the arts. The mutual exclusiveness of such encodings suggests that they might be recognized as particular instances of misplaced concreteness — in failing to allow for the possibility that they may constitute distinctive cognitive projections of intuited dimensionality of reality of a higher order. These may indeed appear to “work” — as with the many efforts of geographers to map the 3-dimensionality of the planet on 2D maps (List of Map Projections, Wikipedia).

A tentative comparison is therefore explored between Dante’s Terza rima encoding and that of the Chinese pattern of trigrams as combined into hexagrams — especially since the latter is accompanied by a traditional commentary in poetic form of relevance to decision-making (Cognitive Adaptation of the I Ching Conditions for the Existentially Challenged, 2015). There is also a curious irony to any comparison of the Terza rima encoding with that of the genetic code (and any memetic analogue), especially given the experiments in the use of music in the sonification of the genetic form.

The assumption made in what follows is that comprehension of viable coherence may indeed be elusive, inherently paradoxical, and strangely self-reflexive (Engaging with Elusive Connectivity and Coherence, 2018; Engaging with Elusive Connectivity and Coherence, 2019; Sustainable Development Goals through Self-reflexive Root Cause Analysis, 2023). The implications of Feynman’s assertion are especially exemplified by the discovery — through the correspondences of “moonshine mathematics” — of a “monstrous” degree of fundamental symmetry beyond any possibility of human comprehension (Potential Psychosocial Significance of Monstrous Moonshine, 2007). Evocation of a “monster” by mathematics is strangely reminiscent of the “Fear-of-God” meme long-cultivated by religion, and of any implications of the unconscious fear of humanity for its own collective shadow (Thinking in Terror, 2005). Polycrisis may indeed be a manifestation of such a monster — a hyperobject as framed by Timothy Morton (Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World, 2013).

As implied by the poetry of Dante, it is curiously the process of triangulation which is fundamental to any mapping of global significance and to the geometry of polyhedra, as discussed separately (Triangulation of Incommensurable Concepts for Global Configuration, 2011). The following exercise progressively calls into question the manner in which the particular “triangulation” of Dante’s framework — so explicitly fundamental to Christian theology — precludes consideration of other frameworks better understood as complementary

The exercise endeavours to navigate between the symbolic significance for many religions of simpler numbers (with their mystical importance in sacred numerology) and the abstractions of number theory (far beyond the comprehension of most). The fact that many religions attach strong significance to similar numbers — without being able to reconcile their differences in that light — is evoked as a potential role for mathematical theology and any ordered comprehension of cosmology (Mathematical Theology: Future Science of Confidence in Belief, 2011).

As an experimental exercise, the focus is on the extensive sequence of questions to which responses are sought for comparative purposes from several AIs (Perplexity, ChatGPT-5, DeepSeek). From one perspective this results in extensive duplication, but in practice it is the contrast between the responses which is often of particular interest. From an educational perspective, for example, the DeepSeek response offered an often lengthy preliminary reflection of value with respect to how a question might be understood — before providing a response. Those reflections have been omitted but could be evoked again. Clearly all the responses could be edited or combined to avoid duplication, and the whole set could also be reduced in length. The pressure to do so is reduced by the technique of hiding the responses — as “working notes” — unless specifically requested.

The sequence of questions was progressively extended in the light of the perspectives emerging from the responses — a degree of evolution in the focus of the exercise and its wider implications for the encoding and comprehension of coherence. In this sense the exercise became a quest for correspondences between contrasting acclaimed “canonical” approaches to cognitive organization, coherence and knowledge management across multiple domains typically treated as unrelated.

The responses from AIs in this exploration have been framed as grayed areas. 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. 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). The responses included many references to sources; many have been deleted for reasons of space, especially since they can be elicited by the curious by repeating the question.

Reservations and commentary on the process of interaction with AIs to that end have been discussed separately (Methodological comment on experimental use of AI, 2024). Editing responses has focused only on formatting, leaving the distractions of any excessive “algorithmic flattery” for the reader to navigate (as in many social situations where analogous “artificial” conventions are common). 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 process calls for critical comment in contrast with more traditional methods for doing so.

TO CONTINUE READING 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.