Paradoxical Geopolitical Implications of Dynamics of Self-Other Overlap

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 5 Jan 2026

Anthony Judge | Laetus in Praesens - TRANSCEND Media Service

Empathy-reification Challenges from an AI Perspective for Israeli-Palestinian and Trump-Putin Relations

Introduction

5 Jan 2026 – The relation between “self” and “other” could be considered a well-worn theme on which further comment is merely an intellectual indulgence. There is a plethora of insights on the matter, variously explored in the light of particular agendas — seemingly to little effect, given the tragic nature of society and the conflicts which continue to be enabled. There is no lack of righteous indignation regarding the merits of “us” and the problematic behaviour of “them” (Us and Them: Relating to Challenging Others: patterns in the shadow dance between “good” and “evil”, 2009). “Others” continue to be framed as a major problem — currently exemplified by “terrorists” and “antisemites”. There are many varieties of “others” whose exposure to problematic behaviour merits (Elaborating a Declaration on Combating Anti-otherness, 2018). It is highly questionable whether they can be appropriately considered morally or systemically equivalent (Mirroring Global Moral Equivalence, 2010; Systemic Equivalences between Ebola, Alien Invasion and Dissidence, 2014; Cultivating the Myth of Human Equality, 2016).

In the face of various forms of societal fragmentation and collapse and polycrisis, there is a case for exploring the “us-them” / “self-other” dynamic with the new facilities of artificial intelligence — especially given the irony that AI could be understood as yet another “other”, if not the ultimate “other” to be understood as threatening “us” as humanity (Marc Carauleanu, et al, Self-Other Overlap: a neglected approach to AI alignment, LessWrong, 31 July 2024). The following exercise is a further experiment in eliciting insight from the world’s resources with such facilities. It makes use of three AIs (Perplexity, ChatGPT-5, and Claude-4.5).

The question framed by such experiments is whether relevant insight into controversial “us-them” issues can be fruitfully gleaned from extensive exchanges with AI. It could also be understood as calling into question the very nature of “research”. What is “re-search” and how is engagement with AI to be considered in that light — given that it is reported to be driving a paradigm shift in “scientific research”? (AI for Science, Nature, 2025; Raj Reddy, The Promise and Perils of Artificial Intelligence, TAO, 2025). Far more problematic in a world of information overload is the question of whether the results of any research are comprehensible and memorable — to whom and for how long — irrespective of whether they are of any relevance to strategic challenges?

These experimental exchanges with AI were initiated by consideration of whether and how meaning can be derived from a construct perceived as proactive (Being Spoken to Meaningfully by Constructs, 2023). The challenge has long been evident in the derivation of meaning from computer models (Misleading Modelling of Global Crises, 2021). AI is now readily recognized as based on a large language model. Particular concern is associated with the “artificiality” of that intelligence — in contrast with the much vaunted nature of authentic human intelligence. In a world of declining attention spans and declining intelligence — in which “dumbing down” has become an agenda problematically pursued — it is appropriate to ask how “artificial” human intelligence is effectively becoming (How Artificial is Human Intelligence — and Humanity? 2023). The concern acquires greater focus through the ability of AI to engage with the emotions of people (Artificial Emotional Intelligence and its Human Implications, 2023). As evoked by parts of the exchange — who or what is “conscious”, as is so exclusively assumed by humanity in an “unconscious civilization”? Is there a case for a Test for human “artificiality” complementary to the Turing Test (2023)?

The exchanges with AI recorded in what follows offer an indication of how highly charged issues can be insightfully reframed with the aid of AI. Ironically they conclude by calling into question the appropriateness of the answers typically expected of AI — to the point of exploring the possibility of koan-like riddles reminiscent of the “AI” of Ancient Greece, namely the Oracle of Delphi. Appropriate to this exploration, this is best known for the maxim Know Thyself. Given the plethora of essentially sterile commentaries on “us-them” and “self-other”, how does an exchange become interesting (rather than boring)? What makes for memorable insights, as with the Oracle at Delphi — for which Wikipedia lists 147 Delphic Maxims — a contrast to explanatory closure? It might then be asked whether AI will develop to the point of becoming humanity’s 21st century analogue to that influential oracle vital to a foundational civilization of the distant past — but on an “industrial scale” (Imagining a Future Union of Artificial Intelligences, 2024).

The exchange which follows endeavours to clarify the dynamic between what is experienced “subjectively” as genuine and authentic in contrast with what is reified “objectively” — between “internality” (“us”) and “externality (“them”). Rather than static categories, the emphasis is placed on the dynamic between, as variously understood by authors such as Martin Buber (I and Thou, 1958), David Bohm (Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980), Henryk Skolimowski (The Participatory Mind: a new theory of knowledge and of the universe, 1994.), and Steven Rosen (Topologies of the Flesh: a multidimensional exploration of the lifeworld, 2006).

The relevance of that dynamic framing is specifically exemplified by reframing the challenge of “Israel-Palestine” and “Trump-Putin” — with implications for analogous confrontations. In addition to that of colonialism, this offers suggestions for reframing weaponry, “development-environment” and engagement with climate change. In each case institutionalized inequality privileging “us” could be caricatured as a collective bipolar disorder — a generalization of the apartheid pattern. Provocatively the argument highlights the widespread use of vulgar expletives at all levels of society as exemplifying an unconscious frustration with any unfruitful framing of “us-them” — and an intuited understanding of its potential transcendence.

The responses of AI recorded below can of course be checked by readers — even challenged — by posing the questions differently, or to other AIs, or to the more sophisticated variants under development. In the following exchange the same questions are asked of the different AIs, thereby enabling comparisons to be made and clarifying the extent to which AIs may offer complementary insights — in contrast to any assumption that AI responses to the same question constitute unnecessary duplication. Each AI offers optional access to the relevant references. These have not been included but can be accessed by repeating the question.

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.