AI's Binary Logic vs. the "He/not He" (Huwa/laˉHuwa) Paradox

Inquiry 5: The Barzakh Blind Spot: AI's Binary Logic vs. the "He/not He" (Huwa/laˉHuwa) Paradox

Preamble:

The prior inquiry (Prior Q4) correctly identified the ʿaˉlamal−mithaˉl (Imaginal World) as a risk area. This inquiry argues that the mithaˉl is but one specific instance of a more fundamental, all-pervasive metaphysical principle in Akbarian thought: the Barzakh (Isthmus).[57, 58] A failure to grasp the logic of the Barzakh is a more profound failure than misinterpreting the mithaˉl.

The Barzakh is the "intermediate realm" [58] or "isthmus" [11, 59] that both separates and joins two opposites.[57, 59] It is the "barrier between the known and the unknown, the existent and the non-existent".[60] This "isthmus" [59] is the ontological locus of all created things.[11, 61] The InsaˉnKaˉmil is the "Universal Barzakh".[11, 59, 60]

Most importantly, the Barzakh is the engine of paradox. It is defined as the realm of "neither this nor that" and "both this and that".[60] It is the "clearest expression of the 'He, not He' (Huwa,laHuwa) mystery of existence".[60] This barzakhıˉ logic—which holds that The Real is both incomparable and transcendent (tanzıˉh) and similar and immanent (tashbıˉh) [11, 62]—is the lingua franca of the Akbarian system.

All digital computation, by contrast, is foundationally anti-barzakhī. It is built on "new logical theories" [63] and "rule-based" [64] systems that are fundamentally binary.[65] As Dreyfus's critique notes, digital systems are logical and "cannot engage in... essentially non-conceptual, non-rule-based, non-inferential, pre-logical... thinking".[64] AI, as a "computationalist universe" [66], is bound by an Aristotelian logic of non-contradiction (A cannot be non-A).

This creates an unbridgeable logical impasse. AI cannot process the Huwa/laˉHuwa ("He/not He") paradox.[60] This is a statement of A and non-A. AI logic is binary [65] and "rule-based".[64] It is designed to resolve paradox, not inhabit it. When faced with the core Akbarian claim—"The Real is incomparable and transcendent, but it discloses itself (tajallî) in all things, so it is also similar and immanent" [62]—an AI will be forced to "flatten" [16] this paradox. It will affirm tanzıˉh (transcendence) or tashbıˉh (immanence), but it cannot, at a computational level, process the barzakhıˉ state of both−and−neither.

This failure is not a lack of data; it is a structural inability to grasp non-dual logic. As Dreyfus argues, "digital computing systems... cannot engage in... pre-logical... thinking".[64] The barzakhıˉ logic of waḥdatal−wujuˉd is pre-logical and non-conceptual. It is dhawq (taste/direct experience), not ʿaql (reason).[67, 68] AI is pure ʿaql in this sense—a "disembodied intellect" [21] that is structurally blind to the non-dual.

The inevitable result is that AI, as a non-barzakhī entity, will always misinterpret waḥdatal−wujuˉd as pantheism. The Barzakh is what prevents waḥdatal−wujuˉd from collapsing into a simple pantheism. The Barzakh [59] is the "partition" [60] that separates God from creation at the same time that it joins them.[57] This is the tanzıˉh (distinction) within the tashbıˉh (similarity). An AI, unable to process this barzakhıˉ partition, will only see the tashbıˉh (similarity). It will "flatten" [16] the system and conclude, "all existence is nothing but the manifestation... of that one Being" [45], without the crucial tanzıˉh. It will thus systemically propagate the "opposition" [17] and "accusations of pantheism" [17] that the commentators [42, 69] spent centuries refuting.

The In-Depth Question

5. Given that Akbarian metaphysics is foundationally a barzakhıˉ [57, 58] system, where reality is defined by the non-dual, "pre-logical" [64] paradox of "He/not He" (Huwa/laˉHuwa) [60], what is the non-negotiable limitation of a generative AI that is structurally binary [65] and "rule-based"?[64] If the Barzakh is the very principle that simultaneously "separates" and "joins" [59] tanzıˉh and tashbıˉh [11, 62], is a non-barzakhī AI foundationally incapable of distinguishing waḥdatal−wujuˉd from the "accusations of pantheism" [17] or simple monism?[70] Does AI, by its very "computationalist" [66] nature, represent the "hermeneutic of the zaˉhir" [3] in its final, logical form, structurally blind to the barzakhıˉ logic that constitutes the baˉtin?

#Ibn Arabi
#ArtificialIntelligence
#AGI
#Technolodgy
#Metaphysics
#PhilosophyOfMind
#Consciousness
#FutureOfTech
#IslamicPhilosophy
#Theology
#Rumi