← Back to essays
XXIV

Living in generation: the daily practice of cognitive liberation

Note. This is a machine-assisted translation of a Chinese original. Where wording matters, please consult the Chinese original.

Living in Generation: The Daily Practice of Cognitive Liberation

Prologue

Across the previous twenty-three essays, I have moved from ontology to epistemology, from West to East, from monotheism to Chan, and finally to the three kinds of error. The chain is walked. The diagnosis is in.

But one of the simplest questions has not yet been answered head-on: knowing all this, how does one live, day to day?

This is not a theoretical question. It is the practical, operational question one faces when one wakes up in the morning and confronts a day, other people, and the thoughts in one's own head that will not stop.

If Generative Ontology can derive only "all structure is generated" but cannot derive "what to do once you have seen that", it is no different from Hegel's Absolute Spirit — stopping at step eight without walking to step nine.

This essay is about making step nine operational.

I. The base diagnosis: suffering = cognition's resistance to the random

The system's diagnosis is clear: suffering = the systematic accumulation of prediction error.

The world is fundamentally indeterminate, and shows up to cognition as random, impermanent, undefined. But cognition's instinct is to seek the determinate — to seek the constant, to seek "it must be so". When the random refuses to behave according to your fixations, prediction error spikes — and that spike is, subjectively, suffering.

Therefore, eliminating suffering cannot mean changing the world; it can only mean changing cognition's mode of resistance. This is not passive — randomness cannot be eliminated, and the only thing one can adjust is cognition's own attitude.

II. Good and evil: cognitive health and cognitive cancer

Within this framework, morality requires no external authority; it derives directly from the underlying structure of cognition.

Evil = solidifying one's own cognition, fixations, and judgements as absolute truths and imposing them on the world and on others. Structure = self-clinging → determination → absolutisation → coercion → harm.

Good = not absolutising one's own fixations, not forcibly fixing reality, not imposing on others. Structure = seeing through impermanence → letting go of fixations → not harming, not solidifying.

Goodness is the only mode in which cognition does not produce suffering. You do not have to be good for anyone else's sake — you have to be good so that you do not collapse into bigotry and being torn apart. This is the most thorough, most free, most external-supervision-free morality.

All civilisational traditions converge ultimately on the same line — "do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire" — not because of convention or divine will, but because this is the only operational rule that keeps the cognitive system from self-destruction.

III. Daily practice: a six-step derivation

From suffering to liberation, every step is a logical necessity, not a piece of mystical instruction:

Step one: recognise. Suffering arises → derive: I am resisting the random; I am attached to some "must be so".

Step two: stop. Interrupt the automated grasping reaction. You do not need to "solve" anything immediately — you only need to stop pressing the accelerator.

Step three: notice. See what I am determining — "he must treat me this way", "this should not have happened", "I must be like this". Not judging the thoughts; just seeing them.

Step four: do not feed the stream. Do not think about, reinforce, or extend the fixation. The growth of suffering depends on the stream — cut the stream and you cut suffering's nourishment. The thought comes; do not feed it.

Step five: return to the random. Allow everything to be as it is. This is not resignation — it is acknowledging the world's actual face. The random is innocent. Resistance produces the suffering.

Step six: non-abiding. Pass through and do not retain. Thoughts come, let them go; emotions come, let them go. Not absence of thought, but thought that does not stay. You still operate within structure, but you do not abide in any structure.

IV. The terminal state: the ordinary mind

The endpoint is not a special, exalted state, but an extremely plain cognitive posture: the ordinary mind is the Way.

Do not abandon choice, but do not add anything on top of choice. Eat when hungry, sleep when sleepy, respond when something arises — but do not pile on each action a layer of "this means who I am" or "does this bring me closer to awakening". Use structure, but do not abide in structure.

Concretely, day to day:

In the system's vocabulary: the cognitive state after precision-weightings have been reduced to zero. Still operating in structure — the cognitive system still generates judgements and actions — but no longer fixing any judgement or action as the narrative anchor of an "I".

V. Construction and dismantling: two directions of one mechanism

There is a tension here that must be faced.

Self-reinforcement is the only mechanism that generates structure. Every action you take treads a path through probability space. Participating in the construction of the world is not optional — as long as you are alive, you are doing it. This is the direction of construction.

But self-reinforcement is also the sole source of suffering. Every attractor, in gaining stability, also gains the power to lock cognition. If you do not dismantle, you are tied up by the paths you yourself trod. This is the direction of dismantling.

The same mechanism, two opposed operations. The construction direction uses it as a tool — deepening attractors, making structure more stable. The dismantling direction takes it as a shackle to undo — loosening attractors, lowering precision-weightings.

Both are real. The world needs bridges, so some walk in the construction direction. Individuals need freedom, so some walk in the dismantling direction.

Engaged without delusion; withdrawn without flight. One root, two ways of living.

VI. Non-abiding in society: collective action, the evil of others, the boundaries of construction

The previous section said construction and dismantling are two directions of one mechanism. But there is a question the previous discussion cannot avoid: the six-step derivation, the ordinary mind, and the dismantling operation all have, as their basic subject, a person dissolving fixations through quiet contemplation. The moment one enters society — the moment one must work alongside others, face the evil of others, and bear responsibility for construction — the operational complexity exceeds what the individual level can cover.

This is not a theoretical gap, but a practical one. How non-abiding operates in society must be answered head-on.

6.1 Collective action

Any collective action — a movement, an organisation, a protest, a policy — requires that participants share some judgement of "this is right". Without that shared judgement, action cannot be coordinated.

But this is precisely the breeding ground of attractor reification. The shared judgement deepens through repeated mutual confirmation — each person sees that others also think so, prediction error drops further, the basin deepens further. In the end, it is no longer "we believe this is right", but "this is obviously right; anyone who disagrees is either stupid or malicious".

This is why the mass line must, at the step "from the masses", remain absolutely incapable of closing. Once the channel of "from" is cut — once the organisation begins to filter "which mass opinions are reliable", once feedback that does not match the existing line is labelled "backward" or "reactionary" — the loop is broken.

At the personal level, this means that within any collective action you must do two things in opposite directions at once. First, commit. You have chosen this direction; throw yourself in. Action without commitment is fake action. Second, hold the awareness that "your judgement is generated". Not doubting your stance every five minutes — that is paralysis, not non-abiding. But while acting, keep a beam of attention on what you are believing.

An operational baseline: do not dehumanise the opponent. The opponent's stance is also generated — it too is the product of the basin he sits in under particular conditions. You may oppose his stance with your full force in political action, but do not, at the cognitive level, erase the fact that his basin too has a history of formation. This is not weakness — it is leaving yourself a door.

6.2 Facing the evil of others

The system says: evil = absolutising one's own cognition and imposing it on others.

But what if others are doing exactly that? What if someone is imposing their fixations on you, or on those weaker than you?

"Respect the freedom of others; do not impose your fixations on them" — this principle is self-sufficient in symmetric situations. But in asymmetric situations — where one party is imposing and the other is being imposed upon — does it not become a demand for the silence of the victim?

No. Non-abiding does not mean inaction. Non-abiding means, while acting, not freezing one's action into "the correct direction of the cosmos".

To stop a perpetrator, you do not need to believe you represent ultimate justice. You only need to know: under this configuration, this action is producing unnecessary suffering. To change the configuration is to reduce suffering.

"Unnecessary suffering" — this is a discussable standard. It is not absolute, and not deduced from any sacred principle. But it is real enough: you do not need to believe in God to judge that hunger is unnecessary suffering; you do not need a complete political philosophy to judge that torture is unnecessary suffering.

Non-abiding is not "anything goes" — non-abiding is "knowing that one's judgement is not absolute, and acting on it nonetheless". These two things are not in contradiction.

6.3 The boundaries of construction

Section V said: "the world needs bridges, so some walk in the construction direction". But construction is not neutral. Every bridge has its piers pressed down somewhere. What you build will, for some, be a bridge — and for others, a wall.

If you are a policymaker, a teacher, a parent — what you do every day is construction. You are deepening certain structures. How do you know you are not building the next prison?

There is no absolute safety. But there are several things you can do.

First, keep the input channels open. Ask the people affected by what you build. Not "are you satisfied" — but "what have you lost because of this bridge". If the answer is uncomfortable, let the error signal in first; do not immediately explain why your bridge is fine.

Second, build with room to dismantle. Any structure must, at the moment of design, presuppose that "at some point this will need to be dismantled". Laws have repeal clauses. Institutions have evaluation mechanisms. Relationships have the freedom of "you may leave".

Third, distinguish between "I think this is right" and "this must be everyone's right". You have, in your basin, made the best judgement available to you. But it is the best provisional judgement available in your basin. Do not, with power, make it the only legitimate judgement in everyone's basin.

These three points are not moral instructions. They are operating procedures — to keep the bridge you build from becoming your child's prison.

6.4 The terminal tension: cannot be closed

Here, the system must acknowledge a tension it cannot fully close.

The operational direction of personal liberation and the operational direction of social participation are, cognitively, opposed. The personal direction lowers precision-weightings — dissolving the lock of structure on cognition. The social direction deepens precision-weightings — making structure more stable, more binding.

Both are needed. A person who walks only in the dismantling direction will, in the end, be unable to act in society — he sees everything as "merely an attractor", and cannot stand long enough in any basin to do anything. A person who walks only in the construction direction will, in the end, become the prisoner of his own structure.

There is no formula to tell you when to walk in which direction. There is only one compass: am I right now reinforcing a structure that makes myself and others suffer, or am I dismantling a structure that prevents myself and others from acting freely?

The answer to this question is not fixed. In every present moment, in every concrete situation, it must be asked again and answered again.

This is what non-abiding means in society: there is no endgame. There is no final, correct social form. There is no "after the revolution is complete". Every solution is the starting point of the next problem. Every bridge has its lifespan. You are not walking toward an endpoint — you are, in a flux without endpoint, choosing again and again, correcting again and again, bearing the consequences of choice again and again.

The thesis of continuing revolution got half of this right. It said "you cannot stop". But it did not say "the direction in which one starts up again, after a stop, cannot be set by one person, one party, one will". The thing it lacked is precisely the "from" of the mass line — the external input that can never be cut.

And that input, at the deepest level of the system, is indeterminacy itself — you can never know what the next feedback will tell you. You can only keep the channel open, and bear the cognitive cost that the "indeterminate" imposes.

VII. A warning

The system gives a complete derivation — every step from zero to eight made clear — but the terminal operation (step eight to step nine) looks too simple: "just let go".

And it is precisely this simplicity that produces three common dangers:

False awakening: experience a moment of relaxation and conclude "I have awakened" — building a new attractor on the self-narrative of "the awakened one". "I have awakened" is harder to dissolve than "I have not awakened".

Wild fox Chan: without going through the full derivation and dissolution from zero to eight, mouthing "not founded on words", "all is empty", "the ordinary mind is the Way" — merely skating across a highly distilled surface of language.

Aestheticisation: turning the system into intellectual consumer goods, into a lifestyle label — losing its only function (the dissolution of precision-weighting) and becoming a new attractor.

The genuine attitude toward life is not "I have understood the theory, so now I have let go". It is walked through layer by layer — noticing each time suffering arises, not feeding the stream each time a fixation appears. Whatever distance you walk is whatever distance you walk. You cannot fake it; you cannot shortcut it.

Conclusion

To be alive is to participate in self-reinforcement. And to be alive lucidly is to participate in self-reinforcement while knowing one is participating in self-reinforcement.

Not as a spectator of generation — not seeing through the world and then standing outside it. But as part of generation, generating lucidly. Still operating in structure, still choosing, still building, still loving. But not adding, at any step, the closed narrative "this is the ultimate truth".

Engage when engagement is called for; withdraw when withdrawal is called for. Knowing how the chain runs, choose each step yourself.

This is the twenty-fourth essay in the Tianwen series; the full series can be found at prajna.club/generative-ontology/essays