On principles

~11 min read

Note 02/25/2026: This was written earlier this year. It is uncomplete and informal, and fallacies/inconsistencies surely exist. Nevertheless it showcases something in regards to my beliefs. Additionally the writing here can be considered a slightly more refined version of the system referred to in Note to a Friend. At some point I will return and update this to be more consistent, as my thought processes are always changing.

My original principles date back to 2024ish. They had several motivations, but these mostly circle around a core need to provide constraint and structure in my motives and actions. I have always been fond of reorganization of my motives and objectives, but it has hardly (if ever) been successful, even today. Nevertheless, actually writing these ideas down did give me some sense of identity and provided me a base with which I could jump off of in the future. In writing, it is often not the draft that is presented as perfection, but it serves as a necessary first step so improvement can actually be done. I think these did well enough in that.

There were three original principles. Notably, they were not simply intellectual but were actually tied to experience and emotion, which the human brain tends to respond to well. Later on a fourth one was added, which I still consider among the original principles.

I. Principiis servus est // Slave to Principles

This is the defining principle of all the others. It is the only one that must be taken on faith. A principle in formal systems is foundational, like an axiom. It is not justified, it merely is. And the theorems (in this case products or productions of the system) are produced emergently by following these principles.

What is an interesting dynamic of a principle is that it is created to aid in production, but it is inherently constraining. If a principle says you must act a certain way and not another, then it limits what you can do. My analogy for this is in the chromatic scale of music, the 12 note equal temperament scale A-G, sharps and all, which defines notes within modern western music. A note is defined by pitch, which relates to audible sound by the physical property of the frequency of an airwave. 440hz for example is the frequency of the musical note A4 or Stuttgart pitch, which is the A above middle C. All modern music can be derived from these notes, and even when they can’t, we can still describe aberrations in relation to these basic notes (half notes, semitones).

But why not increase the amount of notes? Notes directly correspond to a pitch, and there are infinite pitches. So why not infinite notes? Surely this would help us create compositions of a much higher quality? Similarly, a painter works with the basic colours, but the colour scale is infinite is it not? So why not work with infinite colours?

This is honestly a heuristic. The human brain doesn’t work well with full spectrums. We need definitions to be able to understand what we see, even if it is simplifying. And a definition is always inherently limiting. It is simply more worthwhile to allow the human brain to operate with a limited pattern and believe that is the baseline, then to show the full spectrum and allow the human to succumb to information overload. We can only work with what is defined.

By operating according to principles, we reduce the potential options available to us, allowing us to systematically avoid options that are bad (which should be avoided by definition of the principle). The emergent behavior (The theorems of our system) should be good conductivity. What “good” and “bad” are are up to interpretation.

Additionally, this is pragmatic again, because we do not want to frontload decision on every action. It is nice to have a system we can trust will steer us right, and so we can act according to it with minimal cognitive load and still do the right thing. There is a reason why Alcoholic’s Anonymous programs tend to be faith-based. The mental pressure of “should I drink?” is removed, because instead the justification can be put on something they believe in. They must, however, put the stress upon an object of faith that they genuinely believe in.

In our case, we cannot avoid an object of faith. It must both be genuinely believed and also strong enough to withstand the mental stresses and tensions of scrutiny. In my case, my object of faith is paradoxical, because I believe that in some sense this principle system should produce adequate feedback at some point. That feedback is not frontloaded, it should not be at the forefront of my mind or every decision. I am not sure when decision points should arise where the principle system needs to be evaluated for potential revision. But nevertheless, I do fundamentally believe in the principle system itself.

Principle System is fundamentally useful and non negotiable
Stress on cognitive load should be relocated to an object of faith
Object of faith is feedback
Feedback should be analyzed at key decision points
- which are infrequent enough to avoid frontloading of proper conduct on regular decisions, but frequent enough to enable proper working of principle system in ensuring good conduct.
- As such, the text is canonical but also subject to scrutiny. It is an active document.
There must be a working definition of good and bad conduct. Good conduct being also described as virtuous, and bad as sinful.

In a way, this principle doesn’t actually have any affect, it is “boiler plate”, and provides a basic system for adopting principles. Though we must believe in it to justify all the others. It is the one that justifies all belief, and the failings of the other principles are put on this principle and not directly on any of the others. Since the other principles are not under direct scrutiny, they can be given time to prove their worth as valid principles.

II. Veritas super omnia // Reality Above All

This principle basically states that when it comes to decision making on actions or adoption of thoughts, motives, etc. you should always consider the decision that most aligns with reality. Understanding the reality of a situation (and the pursuit of) is highly virtuous and should be pursued, and when you are found to be in opposition of reality you should change your actions or beliefs radically. Therefore, your actions shouldn’t just be aligned with reality, but some of your actions themselves should be concerned with trying to understand the reality of your situation.

This operates off of the driving belief that following reality is the most opportunistic action and the path of least resistance. Assumedly, the character who most follows reality will be the better off.

However, to follow reality might mean you have to face a hard immediate choice to avoid less pain overall. This requires a certain level of thinking ahead, where you measure the pain over an area vs the pain at a specific point. I would assume that locating rational decisions means exercising proper knowledge and wisdom.

Historically, I have found that following reality is always the key choice.

III. Partum vel discere; ad astra vel terra // To create or to learn; To the stars or earth

This principle was the last of the initial three. It was designed to help with figuring out what exactly was “good”, and what was “bad”. If you intend to act in pursuit of the good and in avoidance of the bad, it would naturally follow that you want to know what these mean.

Of course, we have systematic good and bad. Systematically, not following the principles at all is bad or sinful. It doesn’t matter what that action may be or how good the benefit is, because it is outside the system and as such outside the scope of the system. The system acts like a compass, it provides spiritual location and orientation. It tells you where you are, where you’re going, and where you came from. If you go off the map into open waters, it doesn’t matter how good your situation is, because the maintenance of it is unsustainable.

This still doesn’t tell us what good or bad conduct are in practice. What should I actually be doing, day to day? What is my purpose? What action is worthwhile, so that I can focus on the pursuit of it instead of worrying about the justification of it? While the first principle defines systematic morality (good or bad, virtue or sin), this principle intends to define cosmic morality, or an answer to the broad understanding of what an individual should focus their efforts on to in their life. It is not meant to provide daily or casual comfort, but a deep sense of satisfaction that what you have devoted your “purpose” to.

It should be noted again that these principles are working definitions and as such are subject to modification or nullification. Not only are they in service of providing a positive experience on this planet for the individual, but they are biased and catered to the individual. As such, they are personal. What works for me may not work for another. They are not perfect, they are just simply stable, and give us a basis for experimentation to figure out what works and what doesn’t. If the principles fail to deliver, that is fine. The wisdom of the failure is the encoded within the system itself and guides the new principles towards virtue, with a better understanding of what that is and how to get there.

Let’s return to the principle themselves. I loosely define all action as a point within a three dimensional space, where each action is placed according to its orientation within three fundamental characteristics: Its scope (embodiment-abstraction), its flux (absorption-emission), and its mode (articulation-initiation). This is a simplification as well as a heuristic. It is not absolute, it is a convenience for defining things. It also provides a system to frame reality in a certain philosophical way, which I think is useful.

I think that your life and its orientation according to virtue is defined in terms of your effect on others or your legacy. I don’t mean legacy in the ego-sense, because it does not appeal to your social character. It might appeal to your identity, but only in the sense that you embody an identity much larger than yourself, much as a valiant soldier, doctor, or priest embodies concepts much larger than themselves (pursuit of peace, health, or sanctity). Your effect’s can also be described as your productions.

Scope

Let’s first try to define the axes. For all actions, the source of these usually come from an embodied or abstract source. Something abstract is not conceptual or intuitive. It takes effort to be applied or understood, and when handled by the brain it would likely be done by the “Type 2” brain, which is slow and effortful, but also deliberate. Some examples might be any logical work, the usage of Math, or understanding musical theory.

Embodied skills on the other hand are intuitively understood by the user, and connect to the “Type 1” brain, which is intuitive, automatic, effortless, and fast. I would like to note that Brain Processing is itself a heuristic and this should not be taken as a science. Additionally, my usage of these terms might not fully align with their technical definitions. Nevertheless, a type 1 skill might be anything that interfaces with our method of interaction. Driving, playing an instrument, skateboarding. All of these are embodied skills.

Notably, there is overlap. An embodied skill might first be learned theoretically, before being practiced enough to become casually ingrained in neural pathways. And the understanding of an abstract topic might aid in the practice of an embodied skill, such as musical theory to a musician. As is apparent, this system is highly available to interpretation.

Flux

Next we have flux. Flux, stemming from the Latin word fluxus meaning ‘flow’, defines anything which travels through a substance or surface. The term has technical definitions in physics and math, but for our intents serves to define the direction of our actions. Our flux can be ‘inward’ or ‘outward’. ‘emissive’ or ‘absorptive’. If you imagine a classroom, each member within is attuned to a certain orientation of flux. The teacher is providing knowledge, which would be outward. The students are receiving the knowledge, which is inward.

This additionally provides a new interpretation of the system that is integral to our understanding of how to derive virtue. Each interaction is reciprocal. For there to be a teacher, there must also be a student. For the artist, there is the patron. It is not so much about what you do but how it affects others.

Mode

Finally we have mode. This one is the most abstract sounding, but I promise its simple. To understand its purpose, let’s try to understand a 2dimensional system without the mode dimension.

If I am to learn how to play guitar, that action would be defined by an “inward embodiment”. My teacher, therefore, would be exercising “outward embodiment”, perhaps outward abstraction as well if they were teaching more theoretical concepts.

And yet a problem arises. Perhaps I want to create a song, and in doing so I play it for a group of people. This could also be described as “outward embodiment”. And yet I am not teaching, so much as producing or presenting. Likewise, my audience isn’t learning, they’re consuming, or listening. They might take away some sense of skill, but their intent isn’t to learn how to play guitar, but to see what can be articulated with that skill.

And so we need a new axis, the Mode axis. Th

IV. Sapere et agere // To Know and to act.

Identity