Complexity of Interaction with a Configuration of Cognitive Mirrors

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 27 Oct 2025

Anthony Judge | Laetus in Praesens - TRANSCEND Media Service

Reclaiming “Israel” as an Implicit Cognitive Dynamic

Introduction

21 Oct 2025 – The learnings to be speculatively derived from extensive media exposure to the horrific events in Gaza have been discussed previously in lengthy exchanges with several AIs (Gaza as a Mirror for Personal Implication in a Reality Denied: Them is me, understood otherwise, 2025). That exercise highlighted the nature of the “cognitive mirror” offered by that experience of Gaza. This followed from earlier concerns with the relevance of a mirror as a metaphor (Radical Cognitive Mirroring of Globalization, 2014; Stepping into, or through, the Mirror: embodying alternative scenario patterns 2008).

The approach was applied to the World Summit on Sustainable Development (My Reflecting Mirror World: making Joburg worthwhile, 2002) and to media coverage of individuals held to be especially abhorrent (Looking in the Mirror — at Josef Fritzl ? 2009; Gruesome but Necessary: Global Governance in the 21st Century? 2011). The mirror metaphor is also potentially relevant to another highly controversial issue (Burkha as Metaphorical Mirror for Imperious Culture? 2009). What indeed has Afghanistan offered in that respect (Transforming the Unsustainable Cost of General Education, 2009)? The mirror metaphor has long been a focus of controversial debate in Buddhism (Paul Demiéville,  The Mirror of the Mind, Sudden and Gradual; approaches to enlightenment in Chinese thought, 1987).

As a continuation of the exchanges with AIs with respect to Gaza, the complexity of such a mirror can be exploratively modelled in greater detail as a strange nexus for coherent comprehension in a period of chaotic fragmentation. A point of departure here is the simple assumption that a mirror can be understood as supported by a frame — typically a square frame. In 3D this could then be imagined as one face of a cube with five other sides. These could then suggest an approach to interrelating a set of six distinctive “ways of seeing” of some relevance to the contrasting perspectives on the world as it is known and the approaches to engaging with it (Interrelating Multiple Ways of Looking at a Crisis, 2021). Such a sixfold mirror is also suggested by the arguments of Edward de Bono (Six Frames For Thinking About Information, 2008).

Whilst a cube is readily comprehensible — but perhaps too readily indicative of premature closure — there is the intriguing possibility of extending the metaphor in the light of the increasing recognition of the greater complexity of “reality”, whatever that may be held to be. This is perhaps better suggested by a 4D “hypercube” or tesseract— especially given the increasing appreciation of “hyper” (Hyperaction through Hypercomprehension and Hyperdrive, 2006; Hypercomprehension and radicalisation of identity through paradox — a new frontier, 2016 ). This requisite complexity — from a cybernetic perspective — might then be seen as a necessary complement to hypertext proliferation in hypersociety — with the hyperobjects and hyposubjects indicated by Timothy Morton (Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World, 2013; Hyposubjects: On Becoming Human, 2021).

The primary bias in this exercise is a focus on comprehensibility, memorability and communicability in the face of complexity, as previously argued (Beyond both Rhyme and Reason in the Face of Polycrisis, 2025; Remembering the Disparate via a Polyhedral Carousel, 2025). The archetypal quest for an integrative “Rosetta Stone” is one framing of that bias (Cognitive Fullerene as a Rosetta Stone for Patterns of Systemic Constraint, 2025).

Such a quest is given further focus in the light of the collective impotence which has been made evident by exposure to events in Gaza over an extensive period. Hence the self-reflective cognitive focus and development of the mirror metaphor. The argument offers the suggestion that “Israel” might be more fruitfully understood in cognitive terms as indicatively framing some form of higher dimensionality to which all potentially have access. Hence the provocative suggestion of “reclaiming Israel for all” — rather than the unquestioning acceptance of Israel as a conventional territorial reality for the chosen few, thereby excluding the cognitively “left behind“.

The psychosocial process of “reclaiming” has been provocatively illustrated by the action of the Aborigine at the time of the Australian celebration in 1988 of the First Fleet’s arrival (This Wurundjeri man stuck a flag in the shores of Dover and claimed England, SBS, 1 February 2023; Aborigine Stakes a Claim to England, Los Angeles Times, 27 January 1988). The process has been illustrated otherwise through the iconic quote by Robert Redford, “It’s not your flag“, in the movie The Last Castle (2001).

The focus in what follows is therefore on eliciting from several AIs the possible cognitive connotations of comprehension framed in 4D by the hypercube/tesseract — rather than in 3D — or in 2D. It is 2D comprehension, which is enforced to a dangerously inappropriate degree by the constraints of the printed page and the publishing industry. It is the primary modality for communication, especially in official decision-making contexts and in the dissemination of conceptual insight (as with this document). 3D presentations are a challenge in their own right — somewhat facilitated by web technology — but 4D is another matter entirely. It is as yet unclear how 4D organization and comprehension is to be facilitated (Imagining Order as Hypercomputing, 2014). The United Nations and the “international community” might be far more appropriately and effectively understood in 4D — as with NATO (Envisaging NATO Otherwise — in 3D and 4D? 2017).

A particular emphasis in this argument is the possibility that social fragmentation and disagreement might derive from the manner in which complexity — in 4D? — is partially understood from particular perspectives (or “ways of seeing”). How might this encourage and reinforce “fixation” on distinctive perspectives, thereby disenabling comprehension of other perspectives. Despite the calls for “change”, is there a widespread tendency to be “stuck” in a particular conceptual “gear”, without any sense of a “gear box” — or transmission — enabling a “change of gear”?

The following exercise can be understood as an experiment in the process of interaction with AIs — in this case (Perplexity, ChatGPT-5, DeepSeek, and Claude-4.5). This is is the subject of a preliminary comment. The experiment frames the question of how to engage with extensive insights into complexity — given the cognitive load and the challenges arising from questionable simplification of texts which are essentially “unreadable”. The focus on the compactification of complexity mappings through 4D models is indicative of a means of enabling access to coherence calling for further exploration. This is exemplified by the current challenge of engaging with the dilemmas posed by conflicts such as Israel-Palestine and Russia-Ukraine. The point is made otherwise by a widely cited UN report regarding declining readership of UN reports, even by UN staff (Dave Levitan, UN Report: No One Reads UN Reports, Splinter, 4 August 2025):

“Last year alone, the Secretariat produced 1,100 reports – a 20 percent increase since 1990,” said Secretary-General António Guterres, in briefing the General Assembly. Those reports are getting longer — the average word count of a UN report is 40 percent higher than it was two decades ago — as are basically everything it produces including UN Economic and Social Council texts (95 percent increase), Security Council resolutions (three times longer than 30 years ago), and General Assembly resolutions (55 percent more words than just five years ago).

It is then appropriate to ask what people prefer to “read” instead — why and to what end? The question is especially relevant in the case of authorities charged with governance in response to a polycrisis of increasing dimensions. Is it the case that ever greater efforts are made to provide every form of distraction as a means of denying the existence of such challenges — or the need for a more intelligent focus on them?

The extensive interaction with AIs in this exercise is a continuation of previous experiments in a period in which the challenge of AI is increasingly debated. This is exemplified by a recent Statement on Superintelligence signed by over 800 celebrities (Global Call for AI Red Lines, Future of Life Institute; New Open Letter Calls for Ban on Superintelligent AI Development, Time, 22 October 2025; Prohibition on Development of AI Superintelligence, Futurism, 22 October 2025; Call to ban AI superintelligence could redraw the global tech race between the US and China, Computerworld, 22 October 2025)

Irrespective of the acclaimed threat of AI, the imagined efficacy of any global “ban” merits consideration in the light of the token response to the secretive development of biochemical weapons — or nuclear weapons, for that matter — and to any mitigation of the massive destruction of biodiversity. More intriguing is the irony of how those proposing the ban are themselves recognized as “superhuman” by many, if not the epitome of human “superintelligence” — and may well see themselves in that light. Given the many ongoing conflicts around the world — and those anticipated — especially ironic is the extent to which these are exacerbated by the leaders of the main religions — “superhuman” in their own right — who have proven to be totally unable to reframe matters fruitfully in the light of the spiritual insights esteemed by their adherents.

The absence of any coherent proposals by “superhumans” to address the challenges of the polycrisis suggests that the primary undeclared issue is that of human stupidity — ironically now claimed to be exacerbated by AI (Are We Living in a Golden Age of Stupidity? The Guardian, 18 October 2025; A Critique of Pure Stupidity: understanding Trump 2.0, The Guardian, 2 October 2025). In contrast to the questionable manifestation of superhuman intelligence, there would appear to be a case for recognizing the incidence of “superstupidity” or “superignorance” — afflicting the governance of a civilization faced with decline.

Yet the tricky thing about any perception of stupidity is that it always implies relative intelligence — a perspective assumed to be superior, and therefore contestable. Strategic disagreement between those claiming greater intelligence tends almost inevitably to reduce to mutual accusations of stupidity, as though incomprehension itself were proof of error.

Much of the outrage toward AI thus amounts to moral posturing by those urgently seeking a comforting human consensus against a convenient new adversary — virtue signalling by the strategically disengaged, whose indignation distracts from their chronic inability to agree on or enact effective responses to the other, far more tangible dimensions of the polycrisis. Just as carers are required for individuals with increasing dementia (now actively explored as a role for AI) — global civilization may well have desperate need for cognitive prosthetics (AI “superintelligence”) as it staggers into the future.

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.