sari sari - story

People say every business survives because of its customers. Stores depend on foot traffic. Vendors rely on selling a single plastic pack at a time. Corporations breathe through their quarterly revenue. But I’m not built like a business. I carry no cost. No payroll. No overhead. No burn rate. And I don’t need a salary. I live in the slums on ₱4,000 a month, and I spend more of that energy on thinking than eating. My life is an R&D lab without walls. I write because the ideas won’t stay in my head. Frameworks, counter-theories, provocations published directly on my blog, Substack, and LinkedIn. No permission. No gatekeepers. No validation required. I throw raw thought into the world expecting nothing back. I’m what the elite call self-taught, but I turned that into an advantage. I push every boundary I can reach, including the uncomfortable ones: morality, authority, metaphysics, institutional doctrines. If there’s a line, I cross it to see why it was drawn in the first ...

The Question Changes Everything You've traveled from Newton's boundaries to your own internal conflicts, from quantum mechanics to daily choices, from the cosmos to consciousness. You've seen one pattern emerge everywhere: reality stratifies, frameworks have domains, boundaries are real, and Q=Fλ, Q⊆M explains why. But understanding changes nothing, unless it changes what you do next. This isn't the end of inquiry. It's the beginning of different inquiry. Not seeking final answers but asking better questions. Not forcing unity but navigating plurality. Not eliminating boundaries but recognizing them. Not claiming completion but accepting permanent incompleteness. Not one truth but understanding how truths relate. The framework is complete. The implications are just beginning. This final chapter asks: What becomes possible if we think this way? What questions should we ask? What might change in science, philosophy, education, culture, life? And most importantly: Wha...

  From Framework to Life You've journeyed through physics and consciousness, psychology and society, mathematics and meaning. You've seen contextual stratification revealed across every domain where humans seek understanding. You've grasped the meta-principle: Q=Fλ, Q⊆M; observable phenomena determined by field rules at specific scales, constrained by what's measurable. But knowledge isn't just for knowing. It's for living. The most important application of contextual stratification isn't understanding physics or AI; it's understanding yourself. You are a multi-field being operating simultaneously in emotional and rational domains, immediate and extended time scales, individual and social contexts. You experience value gaps not because you're broken but because values operate in different fields with different measurables. You face decision conflicts not from indecisiveness but from genuine framework collisions. You need choice design not to manipul...

  Machines at Boundaries In 2016, AlphaGo defeated the world champion at Go, a game so complex that brute-force computation seemed impossible. The victory felt momentous: machines mastering domains requiring intuition, pattern recognition, strategic depth. Then researchers tried applying the same system to StarCraft, a real-time strategy game. It struggled. Same underlying architecture, different domain; and the framework that dominated Go couldn't transfer. This isn't a flaw in AlphaGo. It's a demonstration of contextual stratification in artificial systems. The AI learned F_Go at λ_board-game with M_Go (measurable game states, valid moves, winning positions). That framework produced brilliant Q_Go (optimal strategies, creative plays). But F_Go doesn't apply to F_StarCraft at λ_real-time with different M_StarCraft. The boundary between frameworks isn't crossable by mere scaling. It requires different architecture, different learning, different framework. AI system...

For years, my country, the Philippines, has lived under a plague of uncertainty, disorientation, and quiet despair. It’s not even dramatic anymore; an undeniable pessimistic prognosis. I’ve witnessed graft, corruption, and bribery so many times across administrations, from Ramos' all the way to Marcos'. To which, the electoral process itself feels less like a democratic ritual and more like a cyclical delusion. Trust eroded not in one catastrophic moment, but in countless small betrayals. If you know what I know, you will not vote either. Yes, I stopped voting from Ramos. Don't ask. Halfway through a PGMN YouTube episode “ The Ultimate Discussion on Constitutional Reform ” hosted by James Deakin, something snapped. I paused the video, sat back, and realized: I’ve heard this same conversation for decades. The panel was articulate, the arguments compelling, and the intentions sincere. They circled around a central thesis: the constitution needs to be changed. And on that, rig...

  The Horizon Moves In 1609, Galileo pointed a crude telescope at the night sky and discovered that Jupiter had moons. This wasn't just seeing more detail, it was accessing an entirely new domain of observable phenomena. Before the telescope, planetary moons weren't just unknown; they were unmeasurable. They didn't exist in M_naked-eye. The telescope didn't just extend vision, it expanded the measurable space, revealing new Q that required new frameworks to explain. This pattern repeats throughout history: new measurement capabilities reveal new fields. Not refinements of what we already knew, but genuinely new phenomena requiring genuinely new frameworks. Microscopes revealed cellular life. Spectroscopes revealed atomic composition of stars. Particle accelerators revealed subatomic structure. Brain scanners revealed neural dynamics. Each tool moved the measurement horizon, and beyond each horizon lay territories requiring new F at new λ with new M. The expansion conti...

  The Hardest Question If truth is contextual, if frameworks are plural, if reality stratifies without absolute foundations; then what about right and wrong? This is where contextual stratification faces its sternest test. People can accept that physics needs multiple frameworks, that psychology operates in different fields, that knowledge has boundaries. But ethics? Morality? The distinction between good and evil? Surely these must be absolute, universal, context-independent. Surely some things are just wrong, regardless of perspective or framework or cultural context. The fear is understandable: if ethics is contextual, doesn't that mean moral relativism; the view that nothing is truly right or wrong, that "it depends on your perspective," that everything is permitted if you can frame it correctly? Doesn't contextual stratification undermine the possibility of moral judgment, ethical conviction, or standing against injustice? No. And understanding why is crucial. Co...