Hi! Welcome to my website, which is also a book in progress.
TL;DR: The drip of source is something to pine for over anything.
Originally Written: 25-Jul-2025
Word Count: ###
Read Time: ## minutes
Most weak proofs fail not because of bad logic, but because the author never sat still long enough to see the heart of the problem.
Step 0 ensures your proof doesn’t just work—it speaks.
Before you even touch the pen, before a single symbol is written, there is a pre-proof phase that Einstein would call “the quiet before clarity.” This is the moment where you align your mind not just to solve, but to understand.
Here’s what Step 0 looks like:
Don’t rush into algebra or formalism. Ask:
What is the essence of this problem?
If I couldn’t use any math symbols, how would I explain this to a child or to my past self?
What must always be true, regardless of method?
Imagine the theorem or statement as something alive.
Why would this want to be true?
What balance or symmetry is at play?
What is the simplest way to “feel” the truth of it?
Einstein often sat with a problem until its “inner necessity” revealed itself. You don’t just want to prove it—you want to see why the universe had no other choice.
What are the givens, axioms, or definitions?
What tools or prior results are allowed?
Are there visual, physical, or intuitive analogies? (Einstein loved mental models: riding on light beams, imagining elevators in space.)
This is a sandbox. Before you formalize:
Try special cases (test with small numbers, simple examples).
Draw it out (visual patterns often whisper the answer).
See what breaks if you assume the opposite.
You’re looking for the one idea that, once seen, makes the proof inevitable.
Maybe it’s a symmetry.
Maybe it’s an impossibility.
Maybe it’s a simple counting argument.
But Step 0 is where you discover that “aha!” moment.
The essence of this problem is I sense that my “North Star” is the belief that all perspectives matter, and integration—not dominance—is the way forward. My philosophy seems to orbit around the tension between survival identity (CRAVE) and liberated being (SWORD), and I am searching for the “proof” that wholeness can emerge through compassion and curiosity.
If I could not use any math symbols, I would explain this to a child or to my past self by impressing that there are no real destinations to get to in life other than the one where you notice you can choose whatever you wish to believe about anything you want about the meaning of life.
However, that does not mean that life does not come with consequences for the choices you make on levels you cannot see for some time unless you pause enough to notice.
What must always be true, regardless of method, is an assumption that we are in a relationship with God, others, and ourselves, that life is relational and our relationships are what give rise to our experiences. Love is a force in this universe, including what we perceive to be distortions of it, and God created us with love having before even starting with the words that bore light into our universe.
Imagine the theorem or statement as something alive.
Why would this want to be true?
It would want to be true to show us proof that love is real, God.
What balance or symmetry is at play?
What is the simplest way to “feel” the truth of it?
Einstein often sat with a problem until its “inner necessity” revealed itself. You don’t just want to prove it—you want to see why the universe had no other choice.
Discernment as Core Practice
Discernment is the non-negotiable, the first principle.
Discernment is our lens for truth—not rigid belief or blind faith, but the active, compassionate weighing of perspectives.
It’s not judgment (which divides), but clarity (which unifies).
In my terms, discernment is the bridge between CRAVE’s fear and SWORD’s curiosity.
The 12 steps up a spiral staircase ad infinitum are a choice to climb.
Peace as a Shared Possibility
This axiom asserts that peace is not innate to the world, but a possibility to be cultivated together.
This is a radical stance because it acknowledges that peace isn’t a “given”—it’s an achievement of shared intent and courageous vulnerability.
It positions myself as someone wanting to prove peace’s inevitability if the conditions of discernment, compassion, and curiosity are met.
All Religions Carry a Shard of Truth
I am pointing at the “meta-faith” of humanity: not about which religion wins, but about the hidden unity of their archetypal truths.
The seed of my philosophy: with discernment as our compass, we can see that peace is not a given but a possibility, and that every faith and perspective carries a piece of the light required to achieve it together.
This is a sandbox. Before we formalize:
Try special cases (test with small numbers, simple examples).
Draw it out (visual patterns often whisper the answer).
See what breaks if you assume the opposite.
If I assume the opposite, then what breaks is the idea that all great works are inspired by the love of God, of which represents everything and, of which, cannot be inspired if believing in anything less.
You’re looking for the one idea that, once seen, makes the proof inevitable.
Maybe it’s a symmetry.
Maybe it’s an impossibility.
Maybe it’s a simple counting argument.