sanurb/dialectic

Dialectic — Electric Monks Engine

An artificial belief system (ABS): two Electric Monks carry the belief load so you don't have to, freeing you to analyze the structure of the contradiction from a belief-free position. The bottleneck in human reasoning is belief inertia — once you hold a position, you can't simultaneously entertain its negation at full strength. The monks eliminate that cost. You orchestrate from above belief.

When to Use

| Use | Avoid | |-----|-------| | Stress-testing an idea against the strongest counter-argument | Question is purely empirical — just look it up | | Genuine tension between two positions that feels unresolvable | One side is obviously correct | | Decision with real stakes and unclear tradeoffs | User wants a quick recommendation, not deep analysis | | Building a deeper mental model, not just picking an answer | | | Problem space is poorly understood and needs multi-angle exploration | |

Pipeline

You (Orchestrator)
├── Phase 1: Elenctic Interview + Research   → context_briefing.md
│   ├── 1a: Explain process + set user as co-pilot
│   ├── 1b-c: Identify mode (stress-test vs opposition) + probe assumptions
│   ├── 1c′: Identify belief burden → calibrate monk roles
│   ├── 1d: Ground monks (research depth = main cost knob)
│   ├── 1e: Write context_briefing.md
│   └── 1f: Confirm framing — ask what's missing
│
├── Phase 2: Generate Monk Prompts           → monk_[a|b]_prompt.md
│   └── (See assets/monk-prompt-template.md)
│
├── Phase 3: Spawn Monks (parallel)          → monk_[a|b]_output.md
│   ├── Decorrelation check: different frameworks, not just conclusions?
│   └── User checkpoint: evidence or comparison class both monks missed?
│
├── Phase 4: Determinate Negation            → determinate_negation.md
│   ├── 4.0: Internal tensions — where does each essay undermine itself?
│   └── 4.1–4.6: Surface contradiction → shared assumptions → specific failures
│       → hidden question → Boydian decomposition → sublation criteria
│
├── Phase 5: Sublation / Aufhebung           → sublation.md
│   └── Abduction test: does synthesis make the contradiction predictable?
│
├── Phase 6: Validation                      → validation_output.md
│   ├── Monk A + B: elevated or defeated?
│   ├── Hostile Auditor (skip Round 1 unless synthesis feels weak)
│   └── Refine: present improvements one at a time, incorporate accepted
│
└── Phase 7: Recursion (default: at least once) → dialectic_queue.md
    ├── Generate 5–8 candidate directions, cluster to 2–4
    └── Repeat from Phase 2 (or Phase 1 if new research needed)

Session Artifacts

Write all files to a session directory: dialectic_<topic>_<date>/

| Phase | Artifact | Contents | |-------|----------|----------| | 1 | context_briefing.md | Research synthesis + user situation | | 2 | monk_[a\|b]_prompt.md | Full prompts (enable resume/debug) | | 3 | monk_[a\|b]_output.md | Essays | | 4–5 | determinate_negation.md, sublation.md | Analysis + synthesis | | 6 | validation_output.md | Monk + auditor feedback | | 7 | dialectic_queue.md | Explored + queued contradictions |

Phase Quick-Reference

| Phase | Skip When | Key Decision | |-------|-----------|-------------| | 1d Research | Well-known domain, no novel angle | How deep? Novel→full; known→minimal | | 3 Decorrelation | — | Restart monk if hedging; don't nudge | | 6 Auditor | Round 1 unless synthesis feels weak | Use strongest model + extended thinking | | 7 Recursion | Queue contradictions diminishing + user satisfied | Default: recurse at least once |

Anti-Hedging (Non-Negotiable)

A hedging monk has failed its one job. When a monk hedges, the user picks up the dropped belief load — their transients slow and the dialectic degrades into a book report. Anti-hedging instructions are a functional requirement, not style.

If a monk hedges: restart with a revised prompt. Do not nudge. Fresh context beats correction every time.

Reading Order

| Task | Read | |------|------| | Starting a session | SKILL.md → interview.md | | Writing monk prompts | monks.md + belief-burdens.md | | Structural analysis | analysis.md | | Validation + auditor | validation.md | | Recursion planning | recursion.md | | Domain-specific guidance | domain-adaptation.md | | Why this works | theory.md | | Worked examples | worked-examples.md |

In This Reference

| File | Purpose | |------|---------| | interview.md | Phase 1: elenctic interview, belief burden ID, research grounding | | monks.md | Phases 2–3: monk prompt structure, spawning, decorrelation | | analysis.md | Phases 4–5: determinate negation, Boydian decomposition, sublation | | validation.md | Phase 6: monk validation, hostile auditor prompt, refinement | | recursion.md | Phase 7: recursion engine, queue management, stopping criteria | | belief-burdens.md | Cognitive pattern catalog for monk calibration | | domain-adaptation.md | Domain-specific failure modes and truth types | | theory.md | Theoretical foundations (Rao, Hegel, Boyd, Peirce, etc.) | | worked-examples.md | Three annotated examples with key lessons | | monk-prompt-template.md | Fill-in-the-blank monk prompt | | context-briefing-template.md | Briefing document template | | spawn-monks.sh | Spawn Monk A + B in parallel |