Post 64: Step 2 => Core Question Formulation
In the last thread, you completed Step 1 and precisely named the Structural Discrepancy—the Coherence Fault. That data is useless if you aim it at the wrong target.
Step 2: Core Question Formulation is the non-negotiable protocol for Structural Inquiry. You are commanded to use the data from Step 1 to formulate a structural question that isolates the underlying flaw in your Ontology, not the symptom.
Structural vs. Emotional Questions
The quality of your existence is determined by the quality of your questions.
Low Quality (Emotional): Why is this happening to me? (Generates chaos and victimhood.)
High Quality (Structural): What unstated, non-negotiable rule must be true for this discrepancy to exist? (Forces the system to reveal its governing code.)
The goal is to force the system to reveal the flawed axiom responsible for the friction. This is the Axiom of Sovereign Will in action: you are the ultimate authority, and you have the right to challenge any rule in your internal governance.
The Call to Praxis (Micro-Protocol Mandate)
Action: Take the Structural Discrepancy you named in Step 1. Your mandate is to write a single, high-quality Core Question that aims directly at the system's Ontological Law. The question must demand the name of the belief that makes the discrepancy possible (e.g., "What flawed belief about my worth makes me accept this low-quality result?").
<== Previous Post
Step 2: Core Question Formulation is the non-negotiable protocol for Structural Inquiry. You are commanded to use the data from Step 1 to formulate a structural question that isolates the underlying flaw in your Ontology, not the symptom.
Structural vs. Emotional Questions
The quality of your existence is determined by the quality of your questions.
Low Quality (Emotional): Why is this happening to me? (Generates chaos and victimhood.)
High Quality (Structural): What unstated, non-negotiable rule must be true for this discrepancy to exist? (Forces the system to reveal its governing code.)
The goal is to force the system to reveal the flawed axiom responsible for the friction. This is the Axiom of Sovereign Will in action: you are the ultimate authority, and you have the right to challenge any rule in your internal governance.
The Call to Praxis (Micro-Protocol Mandate)
Action: Take the Structural Discrepancy you named in Step 1. Your mandate is to write a single, high-quality Core Question that aims directly at the system's Ontological Law. The question must demand the name of the belief that makes the discrepancy possible (e.g., "What flawed belief about my worth makes me accept this low-quality result?").
<== Previous Post
