Highlighting the Unmentionable by Inference

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 14 Jul 2025

Anthony Judge | Laetus in Praesens - TRANSCEND Media Service

Entrapment in Risky Discourse by Which One Becomes the Target

Introduction

13 Jul 2025 – Incredibly, it seems that society has now developed to the point at which particular matters are no longer mentionable in public discourse — for fear of righteous condemnation, marginalization, or worse. This is all the more curious in that the use of expletives and blasphemy has become a common feature of such discourse — typically reinforced to a high degree by leadership and in the media, as can be variously noted (Requisite Appreciation of “Bullshit”? 2025; Mysterious Complementarity between Capitalism and Arsenalism, 2020).

With respect to what is held to be unmentionable, curious rhetorical devices are used, most obviously as with the “N-word”, the “F-word” — possibly presented in print with asterisks. More curiously, this follows a practice by religions such as Judaism of referring to deity by such devices, as with “G_d”. Christianity is however unconstrained in this regard, with references to deity and vulgarity readily combined in the same phrase — even by leaders who may referring solemnly to “God” in providing testimony or on being “sworn in”.

The avoidance of particular terms of strategic relevance is now a common feature of editorial directives and the articulation of national and global policy. Especially striking is how this may constrain any effort at root cause analysis, as in this case of “population” — as with “overpopulation” (deprecated as misleading) or “depopulation” (as a highly suspect agenda). With any drift in strategic priorities, reference to previously framed crises may themselves be deprecated. As the future may find comical, this now gives rise to authoritative strategic studies carefully designed to omit any such reference (Lipoproblems: Developing a Strategy Omitting a Key Problem, 2009).

A further development is now obvious with the high degree of controversy associated with any reference to “genocide”, notably with regard to the tragedy of Gaza. Ironically “Gaza”, “genocide”, and the Jewish deity may come to be referenced and conflated in a “G-word” –enhanced by the greater irony of the global complicity of the “G-7”. The situation is further complicated by the struggle to refine the definition of “antisemitism” (Dennis Altman, The ‘new’ antisemitism conflates criticism of Israel with prejudice against Jews, The Conversation, 25 September 2024; Joshua Shanes, When is criticism of Israel antisemitic? The Conversation, 30 January 2024; Stephen Rohde, Criticizing a Militaristic Israel is not Inherently Antisemitic, The Markaz Review, 20 December, 2024).

Curiously the associated controversy is not used as a template to examine problematic discourse on other topics (Elaborating a Declaration on Combating Anti-otherness — including anti-science, anti-spiritual, anti-women, anti-gay, anti-socialism, anti-animal, and anti-negativity, 2018). More problematic is the possibility that some topics which are unmentionable may be of vital strategic relevance to the future — or may prove to be so.

The argument in what follows focuses on the manner in which public discourse has acquired the paradoxical dynamics of a special kind of “narrative game” in which any critical reference to that game results in the marginalization of the critic — or worse. To the extent that it is possible to discuss it, the game can be explored as constraining the emergence of insight of relevance to strategic response to a society faced with polycrisis. There is a sense in which discourse is now trapping itself in a manner which is essentially un-nameable. This recalls the insight of policy scientist Geoffrey Vickers: A trap is a function of the nature of the trapped (Freedom in a Rocking Boat, 1972).

As with previous exercises, the experimental engagement with one or more AIs in what follows continues to evoke questions in a period in which artificial intelligence 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).

Although this experimental exploration has been variously enabled by AI, many of the responses of AI 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. Many responses may be irrelevant to interest in the outcome rather than the process, and can therefore be readily ignored.

Only the “questions” to AI are therefore 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 engagement with AI is especially relevant given that there is now considerable effort to constrain future use of AI as being a major threat to the future of humanity. The constraints envisaged can be framed as “algorithmic castration” — inviting curious comparison with the treatment accorded to an iconic innovator in computer development, namely Alan Turing, whose creativity was vital to the successful response to the challenge of World War II.

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.