zenpundit.com » koan

Archive for the ‘koan’ Category

Hand grenades: a two way street

Thursday, August 13th, 2015

[ by Charles Cameron — toys as weapons, weapons as toys, appearances, can be deceptive, ethnicities too ]
.

Before there were the realities we now know as “virtual reality” and “real life” there were the two known as “real” and “pretend” or “make-believe”.

Confusing pretend for real can be harrowing enough, as we saw this morning:

but the reverse has even more dire potential:

**

For the record, toy grenades are a a regular feature of the news these days, see for instance:

  • 26 June 2015, Bomb disposal team called to toy grenade in Coatbridge
  • 19 Octpober 2014, Toy grenade puts Newport News neighborhood on alert<
  • Get your Toy Grenades Battery Operated for Pretend Play on Amazon:

    Toy Grenades

  • Pull the grenade pin, press bar and throw!
  • Estimated Delivery Date: Aug. 14 – 19 when you choose Expedited at checkout

  • **

    Watch out, Staten Island:

    But then again..

    when is an assault rifle not an assault rifle?

    and come to that,

    when is a paintball more than a paintball — when is it a weapon?

    and when is the reason not just a paintball, but a scarf?

    — and if that’s not enough, is skin color a difference that makes a difference?

    Ah yes.

    Target and Walmart — another nice pairing that gives that last tweet just a touch of extra impact!

    Opposites attract?

    Wednesday, August 12th, 2015

    [ by Charles Cameron — stunned ]
    .

    This has got to be one of the strangest DoubleQuotes, referencing one of the strangest DoubleLives, that I have ever seen:

    **

    Oh, and are they opposites?

    A difficulty with DoubleQuotes

    Sunday, August 9th, 2015

    [ by Charles Cameron — from artificial intelligence to the Council of Nicea in one easy blog post ]
    .

    It seems fairly easy for a human to tell likes from dislikes, but for a computer to tell likes from unlikes appears to be a far trickier business. Consider the following DoubleQuote in the Wild, which I found in David Berreby‘s Nautilus piece, Artificial Intelligence is Already Weirdly Inhuman:

    adversarial example dog ostrich 601

    You might think these two images are the same. Or that they’re a little different, as the images from your left and right eyes always are, but that if you squint at them just right they will merge into a single image with a vivid sense of depth, like a movie seen with 3-D glasses. You mivght even think the differences between them are a matter of steganography, encoding some IS battle plan under cover of a diggie pic.

    But you are unlikely, I suggest, to think the image on the left is of a dog, while that on the right is of an ostrich. Which is what “artificial intelligence”, in the form of a neural net, figured out.

    **

    And how different are they “in fact”?

    The middle image here shows the amount of variation in pixels between the two outer images:

    negative2 cropped

    The image on the right — the one the neural net iodentified as an ostrich — is an example of what the researchers, Christian Szegedy, Wojciech Zaremba, Ilya Sutskever, Joan Bruna, Dumitru Erhan, Ian Goodfellow and Rob Fergus, call an “adversarial example”.

    **

    It’s not my intent to dismiss neural nets by any means: I have one myself.

    What interests me, though, as someone preoccupied with analogy and metaphor — with likeness and unlikeness — is the deep question of what likeness and unlikeness mean.

    That question lies at the heart of my DoubleQuotes and HipBone Games.

    Back in my Oxford days, my tutor in Dogmatic Theology had me thinking about the difference between the two words Homoousion and Homoiousion, homoousion meaning of the same essence, and homoiousion of similar essence. The distinction was important in Patristic theology, the questionn being whether the Son and Holy Spirit were of the same essence as the Father (one God in three Persons) or of similar essence (three Persons in one God).

    You’ll see from the way that I’ve phased the distinction in brackets (one God in three Persons vs three Persons in one God) that I find the distinction itself less than helpful — and I said so in the essay I read my tutor. Those who hold the Three Persons are the same God (the homoousios doctrine) are saying they are both similar as to the recognition of their common Godness and dissimilar as to the recognition of their separate Personhood, whereas those who hold that they are of similar essence (homoiousios) are, perhaps unexpectedly, also saying they are similar but different: it’s all a matter of emphasis.

    My tutor, much to my surprise and delight, mentioned that he had made the same point in a paper he had recently published in, if I recall, the Journal of Theological Studies, and gave me a signed offprint.

    Similarity and dissimilarity, likeness and unlikeness appear to me to find themselves on a spectrum which approximates closely to identity at one end — but if two things are identical, how can they be two? — and absolute distinction at the other.

    Yet the difference beween homoousion and homoiousion was decided in favor of homoousion at the Council of Nicea, a decision which one writer calls a “bloodless intellectual victory over dangerous error” and “of far greater consequence to the progress of true civilization, than all the bloody victories Constantine and his successors.”

    And okay, there’s more to it, as always…

    **

    Dogs and ostriches, apples and oranges — what’s the diff, eh?

    And G*d knows best.

    Zen in the Art of Future Warfare

    Wednesday, July 15th, 2015

    [ by Charles Cameron — a highly interesting discussion, discussed ]
    .

    How to Write and Fight World War III:

    This is the video of a terrific discussion of the future of warfare — peacemaking, too, if you see them as two sides of a coin — from the Art of Future Warfare project, to which I have contributed [two stories, 1, 2, a video appearance, 3, and even a DoubleQuotes reference 4]

    **

    I want to select certain phrases from the discussion above, and comment on them.

    It’s a work of fiction, not prediction.

    The thing is, a work isn’t just what its creators intend it to be, it can also be whatever its readers make of it. It’s my impression that the Hebrew prophets were not predicting so much as warning — that’s a distinction Wallace Black Elk made a point of mentioning when he was waxing prophetic — but todays “prophecy teachers” all too often read prophecy as a statement of future fact rather than as a warning of a dangerous path to be avoided.

    So we’re dealing with this incredibly complex world – how do we grapple with it? How do we think about these problems?

    There’s a class of answers to this question, ranging from complex mathematical models, sims and games to stocks and flows diagrams to Dialogue Mapping and my own HipBone Games. Most if not all of the items in this class are graph-based (node and link) networks.

    My own vector is away from high tech and “big” data, towards “rich” data and human-sized graphs — ie graphs with few enough nodes that the human mind can fairly easily envision them, and nodes and links rich enough in anecdotal, visual, statistical, aphoristic, quotatiuonal and other forms of data to elicit full-spectrum human responses, emotional, cultural, mental, heart and mind in conjunction.

    we hunger for creativity and intellectual agility in our national security leaders, and our military leaders

    The usual routes to leadership significantly fail to provide such agility, although occasional good apples to manage to survive among the rotten throng.. That’s why it takes so long to go from John Boyd being a voice in the wilderness to his being lauded by SecDef.

    how do we actually cultivate that kind of thinking, that creative, lateral thinking?

    Again, my own practice draws explicitly on Arthur Koestler‘s insight that it is at the intersection of “planes of thought” — silos, anyone? — that creative insights arise.

    My games accordingly, simply and elegantly make all moves consist, at some level, of such intersections. The HipBone move is a conceptual leap, regular practice of HipBone Games is the most focused way to train the mind in creative leaping, on or off the gameboard, in play or in life.

    fiction, literature and the arts are a critical and often overlooked vehicle for exactly that

    I fully agree, and indeed it turns out that the style of “creative leaping” I am talking about is richly found within the complex weavings of the arts — and indeed, my games were directly inspired by a Nobel-winning novel by Hermann Hesse.

    I lack the competence to build a web-playable version myself, but a museum-oriented adaptation of my game ideas by Cath Styles can be played on iPads in the Australian National Museum, and its web implementation, also focused on visual artefacts rather than concepts, can serve as a proof of concept for the wider uses I envision — intelligence analysis included.

    Paul Callaghan, a writer, game developer, and university lecturer who has played Cath’s Sembl game commented:

    Sembl incredibly succesfully mixes competitive and collaborative play, creativity and expression, and exploration and inspiration. It’s the sort of game you think about when you’re not playing it, and it’s the sort of game that helps you see the world in new ways.

    That’s very precisely what any HipBone derived game aims to do, and if we want creative leadership, getting the HipBone Games up and running online and using them in analytic and decision-making training would be a pretty useful step to take.

    it was basically this Army / Marine Corps answer to a zen koan, right

    and

    a theological and religious scholar

    It may seem strange to find zen buddhism, theology, and religious scholarship mentioned in a discussion on the future of warfare, but they’re areas of the human conceptual spectrum with a great deal to teach us about insight. And fwiw, I read Theology at Oxford, and have recently been “sitting zen” with koans after a brief but brilliant afternoon with the zen roshi John Tarrant.

    Playing a HipBone move and “solving” (resolving, dissolving?) a zen koan have a great deal in common. Haiku, likkewise.

    But that’s enough for one post.

    **

    Here are the selections I’ve been responding too, at greater length:

    Peter W Singer

    We have been very clear. It’s a work of fiction, not prediction. That’s the opening line of it. It is based on real world trends and technologies, but it is not a prediction – but hopefully it can be something that maybe ends up being preventative, by identifying certain issues, trends, even mistakes we are making right now, it helps us to avoid those from happening so that the scenario actually doesn’t come to pass. ..

    Kathleen McInnis:

    We’re grappling with an increasingly complex and interdependent world: globalization, climate change, urbanization, population migration, resource scarcity, all of these are trends that are intersecting with the re-emergence of geopolitics on the one hand, and the erosion of what we’ve known as the sovereign state on the other. So we’re dealing with this incredibly complex world – how do we grapple with it? How do we think about these problems? How do we advance US and global security in a world plagued by wicked problems and unintended consequences?

    As Dan mentioned earlier, we hunger for creativity and intellectual agility in our national security leaders, and our military leaders—but how do we actually cultivate that kind of thinking, that creative, lateral thinking? And crucially, how do we communicate how we are thinking about these problems and what we think we should be doing about them – how do we communicate that to our public in a way that resonates.

    And I submit to you that fiction, literature and the arts are a critical and often overlooked vehicle for exactly that, the creative contemplation of matters of statecraft and national security.

    One of the interesting things about that manual [Field Manual 3-24, Counterinsurgency] was that it actually proposed these intellectual puzzles, these constructs, like, “the more you secure your environment, the less safe you can be” – when you’re operating in a local tactical environment. Instead of having a tactical check-list of, you know, this is what we need to do in these particular operations and this is the logic flow for how you do x, y or z in these environments, it was basically this Army / Marine Corps answer to a zen koan, right – like how does this non-logical, really intuitive way to creatively grapple …

    This is no accident. The point of a zen koan is to inspire a deeper, non-logical level of contemplation. But we haven’t always used koans to access that part of our psyches, and that way of thinking about things.

    Karen Armstrong, who is a theological and religious scholar, who wrote a book that I just love, it’s called A Short History of Myth – she argues that ever since we were cavemen, sitting round camp fires, we have been using stories and myths as ways to communicate truths to each other, ways to communicate meaning. Myths were not an expression of religious beliefs per se, rather they were an imaginative, non-logical way to understand who we are and how we fit in the world. ..

    And then you get to the ancient Greeks, who had two very different, equally important ways of looking at the world, Mythos and Logos.

    WTG, Kathleen!

    **

    Possible koans from the COIN Manual, p 1.27:

  • Sometimes, the More You Protect Your Force, the Less Secure You May Be
  • Sometimes, the More Force Is Used, the Less Effective It Is
  • Pandora’s box, bottled by Klein

    Sunday, June 7th, 2015

    [ by Charles Cameron — a graphical analog to the inside outside koan ]
    .

    Thinking one’s way inside that demmed box…

    8-cell tesseract

    What’s even “inside”?

    Eppur si muove! Or not?

    I suppose this can be today’s Sunday Surprise.

    **

    Source:

  • Wikipedia, Tesseract

  • Switch to our mobile site