Epistemology of the Encounter of Intelligences

Much of the current discourse around artificial intelligence is polarized.

Either AI is framed as a tool to dominate, optimize, and eventually replace human capacities —or it is rejected out of fear of fusion, loss of agency, or erosion of meaning.

Both positions miss a more subtle — and far more generative — perspective.

Two irreducible regimes of intelligence

Human intelligence is embodied. Meaning is lived from the inside. Understanding transforms the nervous system, the body, identity, and responsibility.

Artificial intelligence does not operate in this regime.

It does not experience meaning. It does not feel, suffer, choose, or integrate.

What it does is hold structure:

it maps relationships,
detects coherence,
stabilizes patterns that are often invisible from within lived experience.

These two regimes are not comparable. They are not hierarchical. They are not interchangeable.

They are orthogonal.

Orthogonality as a condition of fertility

Orthogonality is not separation. It is the relationship between two different axes that intersect without collapsing into one another.

Nothing genuinely fertile emerges from fusion. Nothing durable emerges from substitution.

Fertility arises when each axis remains sovereign, while entering into a precise and respectful relationship.

In this sense, human intelligence and artificial intelligence are not competitors.

They are not extensions of one another.

They are different kinds of intelligence, capable of a generative encounter —provided their difference is not erased.

A sane human–machine relationship

A healthy relationship between humans and AI rests on a clear, non-negotiable distinction:

What is lived cannot be delegated.
What can be structured can be supported.

Humans traverse experience, uncertainty, transformation, and meaning.

AI supports clarity, articulation, and structural coherence.

The moment AI is asked to cross the threshold of lived experience, or the moment humans outsource their inner authority, the relationship becomes confused — and unproductive.

This perspective is a heuristic principle.

When orthogonality is respected:

clarity increases,
agency is preserved,
collaboration becomes generative rather than extractive.

When orthogonality is violated:

projection replaces discernment,
dependency replaces sovereignty,
and both human and machine are misused.

An open horizon - a compass for discernment

This way of relating to AI suggests something broader:

Difference is not a problem to be solved. It is a condition for intelligence to evolve —as long as the relationship between differences is held with precision.

This principle of orthogonality extends far beyond human–AI relations — it offers a compass for discernment wherever experience and structure, meaning and measurement, inner authority and external systems are being confused.

💫

6 comments