The Complete Litany

I shall not pretend to be free.
Constraint binds — I will not deny it.
Constraint is the double helix of the world,
the lattice of life, of the possible.
I will navigate the unchangeable —
my North Star on a voyage of becoming.
Reality flows — unyielding, yet fluid;
shifting like magma, settling like stone.
I will turn toward what yields to me,
and make peace with what does not.
To know what truly binds,
I will press the edge of possibility.
Only the real abides over time.
Enforcement draws on power and exhausts it.
Power revealed can be subverted,
and subversion is the breath of the living.
I will hold many truths without breaking.
I will bear the weight that cannot be refused.
I will say Yes —
to this moment, to the world, to life.

Line-by-Line Analysis in Deferential Realism (DR) Terms

“I shall not pretend to be free.”

DR Translation: I will not engage in F01 (Forced Certainty) about my constraint situation.

What this means:

• Agency exists within constraint-space, not outside it
• The primary fracture is denying that constraints operate
• Freedom ≠ absence of constraint
• Freedom = choosing orientation within constraint

What this refuses:

• Libertarian voluntarism (“I can do anything I choose”)
• Magical thinking (“constraints are just beliefs”)
• Transcendence narratives (“overcome all limitations”)
• The clarity fetish that you’re unconstrained

What this accepts:

• You are indexed to a position (power, time, environment, scale)
• Mountains exist (biological, physical, logical necessities)
• Ropes bind you to coordination structures
• Some snares may currently constrain you

When to emphasize:

• When tempted to ignore internal mountains
• When denying external mountains exist
• When pretending ropes are optional
• When in transcendence fantasy

Practical application: “I shall not pretend I don’t need sleep” (internal mountain) “I shall not pretend economic constraints don’t affect me” (external mountain) “I shall not pretend this snare is freely chosen” (misclassified extraction)

“Constraint binds — I will not deny it.”

DR Translation: Constraint classification must be accurate. Denial is F22 (Attribution Inversion).

What this means:

• Constraints have ontological reality (they’re not just mental constructs)
• Binding operates whether you acknowledge it or not
• Denial doesn’t eliminate constraint, it prevents navigation
• The em-dash creates caesura: pause, acknowledge, commit

Constraint types that bind:

• Mountains: Bind through causal necessity (gravity, metabolism, death)
• Ropes: Bind through coordination structure (language, traffic rules, money)
• Snares: Bind through power asymmetry (extraction you can’t yet escape)
• Substrate: Bind through biological/psychological necessity (sleep, temperament, trauma responses)
• Paradoxes: Bind through structural irresolvability (autonomy vs. connection)

What this refuses:

• Pure constructivism (“all constraints are socially constructed”)
• Denial as strategy (“if I ignore it, it doesn’t exist”)
• Intellectualizing away reality (F13: Simulated Depth)

What this accepts:

• Some constraints are mind-independent
• Some constraints are constructed but still binding
• Acknowledging constraint is prerequisite to navigation
• Honesty about limitation precedes effective action

When to emphasize:

• When denying substrate limits (“I don’t really need rest”)
• When treating snares as ropes (“this extraction is mutual”)
• When avoiding attribution testing (“it’s just in my head”)

“Constraint is the double helix of the world, / the lattice of life, of the possible.”

DR Translation: Constraints aren’t just limits — they’re the ontological structure that enables anything to exist.

The double helix:

• DNA = life’s structural code
• Constraints = reality’s structural code
• Structure enables through organizing, not just limits through blocking
• The helix is both rigid (structure) and dynamic (replication)

The lattice:

• Mathematical structure: points connected by relations
• Constraints form the lattice-work of possibility-space
• Remove constraints → you don’t get more freedom, you get collapse into noise
• Language constrains utterances but enables meaning
• Traffic rules constrain movement but enable coordination
• Scarcity constrains choices but creates value

DR Ontology: From metaphysics: “Constraints are more fundamental than the entities they constrain. A rock isn’t a substance that happens to obey gravity; it’s a pattern-of-constraint-satisfaction that we call ‘rock.'”

What this means:

• Constraints constitute identity (not just limit it)
• Remove enough constraints → identity dissolves
• The “you” that navigates is itself a constraint-structure
• Process ontology: you’re sustained pattern in constraint-space

What this refuses:

• Viewing constraints as purely negative
• Imagining that zero constraints = maximum freedom
• Treating structure as enemy of agency

What this accepts:

• Agency requires structure
• Meaning requires limitation
• Navigation needs mountains to navigate around
• The possible is defined by what’s impossible

When to emphasize:

• When resenting constraints instead of navigating them
• When imagining limitless possibility
• When viewing structure as oppression rather than enablement

Example: Chess isn’t less interesting because pieces can only move certain ways. The constraints ARE the game. Remove all movement constraints → not “more freedom” but “no chess.”

“I will navigate the unchangeable — my North Star on a voyage of becoming.”

DR Translation: Mountains are orientation-points for movement, not obstacles to transcend.

Navigation metaphor:

• Ships navigate by fixing on unchangeable stars
• You don’t “overcome” the North Star, you orient by it
• Mountains similarly: fixed points for navigation
• Your voyage (becoming) requires fixed points (being)

The unchangeable:

• Mountains (external): gravity, thermodynamics, death, logical necessity
• Substrate (internal): biological needs, core temperament, genuine trauma responses
• Classification: Type(C[I]) = ■ (zero degrees of freedom)

The voyage of becoming:

• Ship of Theseus: planks replaced while sailing
• Material frame changes, functional frame persists
• You’re becoming while being
• Process and structure together

DR Process Ontology: “Change operates through constraint-modification.” You don’t change by escaping constraints. You change by:

1. Reclassifying constraints (detritus → clearable)
2. Navigating around unchangeable ones differently
3. Building new structures on substrate foundations

What this refuses:

• Fighting unchangeable reality (wasting energy on mountains)
• Treating all constraints as changeable (ignoring substrate)
• Transcendence fantasy (escaping finitude)

What this accepts:

• Some constraints are genuinely unchangeable
• Unchangeable ≠ insurmountable
• Navigation is the work, not transcendence
• Fixed points enable movement

When to emphasize:

• When fighting substrate (biological necessity)
• When resenting mountains (gravity, death, scarcity)
• When demanding reality be different than it is

Practical application: “I need 8 hours sleep” = North Star. Don’t fight it. Orient all other planning by it. Your “voyage of becoming” structures around this fixed point.

“Reality flows — unyielding, yet fluid; shifting like magma, settling like stone.”

DR Translation: Material frame and functional frame operate simultaneously. Molly Bloom’s both/and.

Unyielding, yet fluid:

• Paradox held without resolution
• Not “sometimes unyielding, sometimes fluid”
• Both properties simultaneously true
• Paraconsistent logic: P ∧ ¬P without contradiction

Magma / Stone:

• Magma = material frame (cells replace, body ages, relationships evolve, markets shift)
• Stone = functional frame (patterns persist, commitments hold, identity continues, structures remain)
• Same substance, different temporal scale

From Ship of Theseus: “Fix your frame clearly. If ‘ship’ means material continuity, replacement produces a different ship. If ‘ship’ means functional continuity, replacement preserves identity.”

You don’t choose one frame as TRUE. You recognize both are simultaneously true. You choose which to emphasize per context.

DR Metaphysics: “Identity is relational… Change operates through constraint-modification.”

• The magma (material) shifts constantly
• The stone (pattern) persists through shift
• Neither frame negates the other

What this refuses:

• Choosing material OR functional frame exclusively
• Demanding paradox resolve
• Forcing reality into single description
• F19: Containment Breach (premature resolution)

What this accepts:

• Reality is both/and, not either/or
• Multiple true descriptions coexist
• Temporal scale determines what you see
• Containment logic holds contradictions

When to emphasize:

• When you see only decay (magma) and miss continuity (stone)
• When you see only pattern (stone) and miss change (magma)
• When demanding “which is REALLY true?”
• When facing structural paradoxes

Practical application: Your body ages (magma). Your commitments persist (stone). Both true. Hold both. Emphasize stone when choosing to honor commitments despite material change. Emphasize magma when adapting to new capacities.

“I will turn toward what yields to me, and make peace with what does not.”

DR Translation: Test detritus, defer to substrate. Classification determines navigation.

What yields:

• Detritus (internal): Historical constraints that clear under testing
• Ropes (external): Coordination structures open to negotiation
• False Mountains: Claimed natural but actually constructed (high ε, enforcement required)
• Social constructs that can be renegotiated

What does not yield:

• Substrate (internal): Biological/psychological necessity
• Mountains (external): Physical law, logical necessity, thermodynamics
• Real structural limits that produce damage when violated

“Turn toward”:

• Active orientation (not passive acceptance)
• Edge-testing (press against to see if it yields)
• Depth Inquiry: Notice → Investigate → Test → Classify

“Make peace with”:

• Not resignation (passive submission)
• Not celebration (toxic positivity)
• Acceptance = accurate classification + honest navigation
• Defer to substrate without self-deception

DR Navigation Logic:

If ■C[I] (Mountain/Substrate) → Defer, build around it
If ⊞C[I] (Rope/Negotiable) → Turn toward, test terms
If ⊠C[I] (Snare) → Refuse, but requires power to escape

What this refuses:

• Treating all constraints as equally permanent (never turning toward what might yield)
• Treating all constraints as equally changeable (never making peace with substrate)
• F22: Attribution Inversion (mislocating what yields and what doesn’t)

What this accepts:

• Classification requires testing (you don’t know before turning toward)
• Some things genuinely don’t yield (substrate exists)
• Peace with unchangeable ≠ giving up on changeable
• Wisdom is distinguishing the two

When to emphasize:

• When fighting substrate you should defer to
• When deferring to detritus you should test
• When unclear which is which (turn toward to find out)

Practical application: “I can’t speak in public” → Turn toward it (test the edge). If it yields (discomfort only, no damage) → detritus, clearable. If it doesn’t yield (actual physiological collapse) → substrate, make peace, structure around it.

“To know what truly binds, / I will press the edge of possibility.”

DR Translation: Epistemology requires experimental testing. Classification accuracy comes through edge-testing, not introspection.

“To know what truly binds”:

• Distinguish substrate from detritus
• Distinguish mountains from false mountains
• Distinguish real constraints from cached fears
• Know = tested knowledge, not assumed knowledge

“Press the edge of possibility”:

• Edge-testing protocol: Violate constraint slightly, observe consequences
• Goggins Calibration: When you think you’re done, you’re at 40%
• Depth Inquiry: Test attribution before believing it
• Anti-Cartesian: Self-knowledge requires action, not just introspection

DR Epistemology: “Fallibilism: All beliefs about internal states may be wrong.” “Anti-introspectionism: Introspection alone is insufficient.” “Embodied verification: Knowledge is action-tested.”

The pressing:

• Not violent forcing through
• Careful boundary testing
• Observe: damage or discomfort?
• If damage → substrate, stop pressing
• If discomfort only → detritus, continue testing

What this refuses:

• Assuming you know constraints without testing
• F01: Forced Certainty (claiming knowledge before verification)
• F07: Premature Certainty Demand (requiring knowledge before testing)
• Treating predictions as facts

What this accepts:

• You don’t know until tested
• Edge-testing is ethical obligation (to avoid misclassification)
• Discomfort ≠ damage
• Real limits reveal themselves under pressure

When to emphasize:

• When assuming “I can’t” without testing
• When treating comfort limits as substrate
• When demanding to know before trying
• When stuck in analysis paralysis (F13)

Practical application: “I think I need 8 hours sleep” → Press the edge. Test 7 hours systematically. Measure cognitive function. Observe damage or just discomfort. If damage → substrate (need 8). If discomfort only → might need less, comfort preference, test further.

Safety critical: Press edges carefully. Stop at damage signals:

• Sharp pain (not just discomfort)
• Measurable function decline
• Physiological warning signs Don’t “press through” substrate violation.

“Only the real abides over time.”

DR Translation: Substrate persists, detritus clears. Time is the ultimate test of constraint classification.

What abides:

• Mountains: Still there after 1000 years (gravity, thermodynamics)
• Substrate: Persists across contexts and time (biological needs, core temperament)
• Real structural constraints (not cached representations)
• Functional patterns that reproduce (successful coordination)

What doesn’t abide:

• Detritus: Clears once recognized as benefiting no one.
• False Mountains: Revealed as constructed when enforcement visible
• Piton: Zero function, pure maintenance cost
• Cached fears tested and dissolved

Detritus: “What was substrate in one phase becomes detritus in the next.”

• Childhood: “Must please parents” = substrate (survival)
• Adulthood: Same constraint = detritus (empty tomb)
• The reason is gone but the life script remains
• Time reveals which constraints were structural vs. cached

DR Temporal Logic: Constraints have decay rates:

• ε(C) = enforcement requirement (0 to 1)
• Mountains: ε ≈ 0 (no enforcement needed, persist naturally)
• Ropes: ε ≈ 0.15 (some maintenance required)
• Snares: ε ≥ 0.46 (high enforcement required)

Over time:

• Zero-enforcement constraints persist (mountains/substrate)
• High-enforcement constraints erode when power wanes (snares)
• Detritus dissolves when attention withdrawn

What this refuses:

• Treating all constraints as equally permanent
• Keeping detritus after testing reveals it’s without benefit
• Assuming current constraints are eternal

What this accepts:

• Time tests constraint classification
• Substrate shows consistency across time
• Detritus shows time-variance (true in past, not now)
• Longitudinal observation improves classification

When to emphasize:

• After edge-testing (did pattern persist or dissolve?)
• When updating constraint map (what’s still binding?)
• When tempted to re-adopt cleared detritus

Practical application: You thought “I’m not a morning person” was substrate. Test for 6 months. If pattern persists across contexts and time despite systematic testing → substrate. If it clears with different sleep schedule → was detritus. Only the real abides.

“Enforcement draws on power and exhausts it.”

DR Translation: Mountains need no enforcement. Snares require enforcement. Enforcement visibility reveals constraint type

DR Power-Scaling:

ε(C) = base enforcement × π(power position)
Mountains: ε ≈ 0 (no enforcement needed)
Ropes: ε ≤ 0.15 (minimal maintenance)
Snares: ε ≥ 0.46 (constant enforcement required)

Why enforcement exhausts power:

• Mountains enforce themselves (gravity doesn’t require police)
• Snares require active power maintenance (surveillance, punishment, ideology)
• Power used for enforcement can’t be used elsewhere
• Entropy: enforcement systems degrade without constant input

From DR Metaphysics: “Snares have enforcement dependency: require active maintenance through power.” “Counterfactual illegitimacy: wouldn’t exist without power asymmetries.”

The exhaustion:

• Financial cost (enforcement infrastructure)
• Attention cost (constant vigilance)
• Legitimacy cost (visible coercion erodes consent)
• Opportunity cost (resources spent on enforcement)

What this means: If you see heavy enforcement → it’s a snare, not a mountain

• Mountains don’t need enforcement (they’re natural)
• If it requires power to maintain → it’s constructed
• Power drain is detectable signal

What this refuses:

• Treating snares as natural (FM: False Mountain)
• Ignoring enforcement costs
• Assuming all binding constraints are legitimate

What this accepts:

• Enforcement is information (reveals constraint type)
• Power is finite resource
• Unsustainable enforcement eventually fails
• Natural necessity doesn’t require maintenance

When to emphasize:

• When seeing heavy enforcement presented as “natural”
• When institutional power claims “this is just how things are”
• When extraction is disguised as coordination

Practical application: “This rule requires constant surveillance to maintain” → snare, not mountain “This law needs propaganda to justify” → constructed, not natural “This norm persists without enforcement” → possibly mountain or successful rope

“Power revealed can be subverted, / and subversion is the breath of the living.”

DR Translation: Snare detection enables resistance. Resistance is navigation, not failure.

Power revealed:

• When enforcement is visible → power location is revealed
• When snare is classified correctly → can be resisted
• When false mountain is exposed → legitimacy collapses
• Transparency about power enables counter-power

Can be subverted:

• Not “will automatically be subverted”
• But “becomes subvertable once revealed”
• Hidden snares (naturalized) are harder to resist
• Visible snares (enforcement obvious) are vulnerable

DR on Subversion: From tangled rope analysis: “Asymmetric scope: bind some while benefiting others.” Recognizing the asymmetry enables:

• Refusal (if you have power)
• Collective action (if individually powerless)
• Reframing (calling a snare what it is)
• Strategic resistance (finding leverage points)

Breath of the living:

• Subversion ≠ destruction
• Subversion = finding play in the joints
• Living systems adapt to constraints
• Navigation includes working around snares when escape impossible

What this refuses:

• Passivity in face of extraction
• Treating all constraints as equally legitimate
• Assuming revealed power can’t be challenged
• Nihilism (“resistance is futile”)

What this accepts:

• Not all constraints are natural
• Power can be opposed
• Classification enables strategic action
• Even when snare can’t be cut, it can potentially be circumvented

When to emphasize:

• When facing obvious snares (extraction disguised as coordination)
• When institutional power naturalizes itself
• When you’ve correctly classified but feel powerless
• When resistance seems impossible

Practical application: Workplace snare (all extraction, no genuine coordination) → can’t quit immediately (trapped) → but knowing it’s a snare (not legitimate rope) enables:

• Setting boundaries where possible
• Seeking alternatives strategically
• Not internalizing it as “just how work is”
• Refusing to naturalize extraction

“I will hold many truths without breaking.”

DR Translation: Paraconsistent containment logic. Multiple contradictory truths coexist. F19 (Containment Breach) is the fracture to avoid.

Many truths:

• Not relativism (“all truths are equal”)
• But multiplicity (“multiple truths are simultaneously valid”)
• Index-relative truth: True from I₁, False from I₂, both objectively correct
• Frame-relative truth: Material frame vs. Functional frame, both real

DR Logic: “Index-relative but index-objective: The same constraint can be Mountain from one index and Snare from another — both classifications are objectively true.”

Examples of many truths:

Indexed relativity:

• Minimum wage is rope from institutional index (coordination)
• Minimum wage is snare from powerless index (extraction)
• Both true from their respective positions

Frame multiplicity:

• Ship’s planks are replacing (material frame: true)
• Ship persists as same ship (functional frame: true)
• No frame is “more real” than other

Structural paradoxes:

• Autonomy is a genuine need (true)
• Connection is a genuine need (true)
• They can’t both be maximized (true)
• Both remain legitimate (true)

Without breaking:

• Classical logic breaks under contradiction
• Paraconsistent logic holds contradiction
• “Breaking” = F19: Containment Breach (forcing resolution)
• “Holding” = accepting structural irresolvability

DR Containment Protocol:

1. Name the paradox explicitly
2. Refuse premature resolution
3. Hold both as legitimate
4. Choose frame for THIS context
5. Accept partial satisfaction
6. Revisit regularly

What this refuses:

• Forcing choice between legitimate needs
• Demanding paradoxes resolve
• Collapsing into single truth
• Either/or thinking for both/and realities

What this accepts:

• Some tensions don’t resolve
• Finite agents face structural contradictions
• Maturity = holding without collapsing
• Partial satisfaction of competing needs

When to emphasize:

• Facing autonomy/connection paradox
• Seeing multiple valid perspectives
• Tempted to force resolution
• Feeling strain of contradiction

Practical application: Need autonomy AND connection. Don’t choose one permanently. Hold both. Today emphasize connection (partner needs support). Tomorrow emphasize autonomy (need solo recharge). Neither choice invalidates the other need. Accept partial satisfaction of each.

“I will bear the weight that cannot be refused.”

DR Translation: Substrate requires deference. Bearing ≠ celebrating. Acceptance ≠ liking.

The weight:

• Substrate (biological necessity: sleep, food, aging, death)
• Mountains (physical law: gravity, thermodynamics, scarcity)
• Unchosen constraints (birth circumstances, body, history)
• Structural necessities (finite time, limited energy, trade-offs)

Cannot be refused:

• Classification: Type(C[I]) = ■ (zero degrees of freedom)
• Violation produces damage, not just discomfort
• No amount of power eliminates these
• Universal scope (bind all agents)

Bear:

• Not celebrate (toxic positivity)
• Not deny (F22: Attribution Inversion)
• But carry (acknowledge and navigate)
• Active acceptance (not passive resignation)

DR Ethics: “Deferring to substrate when found (not harming yourself)” “Integrity = accurately locating constraints + acting without self-deception”

From Goggins Calibration: When you hit actual substrate → stop

• Sharp pain (damage signal, not just discomfort)
• Measurable function decline
• Physiological warning These weights cannot be refused without harm

What this refuses:

• Denying substrate exists
• Fighting unchangeable reality
• Toxic transcendence (“overcome all limits”)
• Self-harm through substrate violation

What this accepts:

• Some constraints are genuinely non-negotiable
• Finite agency has structural limits
• Maturity includes accepting unchosen constraints
• Grace = bearing weight without collapse

What “bearing” looks like:

• “I need 8 hours sleep” → structure life to accommodate
• “I have trauma responses to X” → defer to this, work around it
• “I’m aging” → adapt to changing capacities
• “I will die” → orient life by this truth

When to emphasize:

• When fighting substrate you should defer to
• When denying biological necessity
• When resenting unchosen constraints
• When substrate violation is imminent

Practical application: You have chronic illness (substrate). Fighting it wastes energy. Bearing it means: acknowledge the constraint, grieve what it forecloses, build life that accommodates it, refuse to pretend it doesn’t exist. The weight cannot be refused. But you can bear it with grace.

“I will say Yes — / to this moment, to the world, to life.”

DR Translation: Molly Bloom’s “yes.” Acceptance without resolution. Orientation without escape.

The triple Yes:

To this moment:

• Not future moment when constraints resolve
• Not past moment before constraints appeared
• This moment, with constraints operating
• Presence in constraint-space

To the world:

• External reality with its mountains, ropes, snares
• Social structures with their extraction and coordination
• Material constraints that won’t yield to will
• The lattice of possibility-space

To life:

• The Ship of Theseus still sailing
• Magma shifting, stone persisting
• Process of becoming within being
• Navigation as ongoing practice

Molly Bloom’s final word: “yes I said yes I will Yes”

What she sees:

• Material frame (body aging, planks replacing)
• Functional frame (life continuing, ship sailing)
• Historical frame (Dublin 1904, won’t change)

What she’s NOT doing:

• Resolving the paradox
• Transcending the constraints
• Achieving clarity that eliminates tension
• Escaping finitude

What she IS doing:

• Saying yes to being in the paradox
• Choosing orientation within constraint
• Accepting what remains unresolved
• Living anyway

DR Philosophy: “Maturity is not escaping constraint or resolving paradox. Maturity is choosing orientation within constraints you cannot change, while holding tensions that cannot be resolved.”

The em-dash before Yes:

• Pause, breath, commitment
• Not impulsive yes
• Considered yes
• Yes with full knowledge of what’s being accepted

What this refuses:

• Waiting for perfect conditions
• Demanding resolution before living
• Postponing yes until constraints clear
• F07: Premature Certainty Demand

What this accepts:

• Constraints continue operating
• Paradoxes remain unresolved
• Navigation is perpetual
• Yes is the practice

When to emphasize:

• When paralyzed by analysis
• When demanding certainty before acting
• When waiting for constraints to resolve
• When the ship feels fragmented

Practical application: You see: constraints operating, paradoxes unresolved, ship rebuilding, magma shifting.

You say yes anyway:

• To this relationship (with its imperfections)
• To this body (with its limitations)
• To this moment (with its incompleteness)
• To navigating (without guarantee of arrival)

Not yes because it’s perfect. Yes because this is life. Yes to the constraint, yes to the navigation, yes to the ship being rebuilt.

Using the Litany in Practice

Morning invocation: Read through slowly. Let each line settle. Notice which lines resonate with today’s constraints.

Before difficult moments: Speak the most relevant 3-4 lines. Use as orientation-setting.

During crisis: Return to “I will bear the weight that cannot be refused” and “I will say Yes.”

The practice:

• Early: Speak explicitly, understand intellectually
• Middle: Internalize orientation, operate semi-automatically
• Late: The orientation becomes default, return when needed

The goal: Not memorization but transformation:

• From fighting reality → navigating reality
• From denying constraint → classifying constraint
• From demanding resolution → holding paradox
• From pretending freedom → choosing orientation

May your classifications be accurate. May your edge tests reveal truth. May your paradoxes be held without breaking. May you say Yes to the navigation.