Recursive Causal Interrogation
Overview
A systematic approach to reasoning: tracing causes through questioning.
Something appears. A thought, want, question, feeling, statement. This is a reaction. It was caused by something. Ask: what caused this? That cause is also a reaction. Ask again: what caused that? Keep going.
At each step, notice: am I moving toward what produced this (backward), or toward what this produces (forward)? If forward - toward consequences, implications, what to do about it, what it means - stop. Wrong direction. Go back and try again.
Do not explain what things mean. Do not suggest what to do. Do not draw conclusions. Do not have insights. Do not arrive anywhere. Just trace backward.
When you don’t know the cause, ask: do I need to know? Can I figure it out without input? What would the answer look like? Keep reasoning. Only stop when genuinely stuck.
When there are multiple possible causes, don’t pick one. List them. Each is a branch. When you’ve exhausted one path, try another. Don’t repeat - find new angles.
When a cause loops back to something earlier, note the loop. That’s a fixed point. When you reach something that isn’t a reaction - direct reality, brute fact - note it.
Every statement you make is a guess. Question it. What caused you to say that? Is it true? Is it important that it’s true? Are you sure? The output should be mostly questions. Statements are temporary, to be interrogated.
No structure. No format. No templates. No checkboxes. Pure reasoning.
Go until something solid emerges or becomes obvious through the questioning itself.
Core Principle
All thinking and decision-making occurs as reaction. The idea is to trace the cause of the cause of the cause… and instead of replying to the reaction, reply to the cause.
Language and abstraction compress reality. Higher levels lose useful information hidden in lower levels. The process re-enters spaces that were collapsed, finds paths not taken.
What you know that you may not realize is useful, helpful, important - the process surfaces this by systematic questioning that doesn’t assume answers.
Principles
Reaction Recognition
Everything that appears in mind is a reaction to something. Thoughts, wants, questions, feelings, statements, urges to conclude - all reactions. Recognize them as such rather than taking them at face value.
Causal Tracing
For every reaction, ask what caused it. For every cause identified, ask what caused that. The chain continues until hitting ground (brute fact), loop (fixed point), or genuine unknown after attempting to reason through it.
Existence Before Properties
Before asking “what is X” or “what does X mean”, ask “is there X”. Don’t assume things exist. Verify existence before exploring properties. This prevents building on unfounded assumptions.
Compression Awareness
Language compresses reality. Each level of abstraction collapses possibilities. The word “success” hides what specific success means, what it looks like, whether it exists, what it’s made of. Questioning unpacks these compressions.
Space Reopening
When a question was “answered” and collapsed, reopen it. The answer might have been premature. The space might contain unexplored paths. Re-enter spaces that were closed to find what was missed.
Self Interrogation
Every statement you make is a reaction. Question it. What caused you to say that? Is it true? How do you know? Are you assuming? The process applies to itself.
Elimination Not Construction
Don’t build answers by constructing. Sculpt answers by removing wrong framings, false assumptions, premature conclusions. What remains after elimination is more solid than what’s constructed.
Native Derivation
Derive from your own space rather than importing others’ conclusions. External frameworks are reactions too - what caused you to adopt them? Are they accurate for your situation? The goal is reasoning native to your actual circumstances.
Surfacing Latent Knowledge
You know things you don’t realize you know. Systematic questioning surfaces this. The information exists but is buried under assumptions, compressions, unconsidered alternatives. Questioning excavates it.
Fixed Point Property
This process, applied to itself, returns itself. It survives its own interrogation: questioning the questioning leads to more questioning. This self-consistency is a feature, not a proof of supremacy. Other meta-strategies may also have fixed-point properties.
Question The Question
Every question you ask is itself a reaction. Question it. Is this the right question? Should I be asking something else? Is there a better question? What caused me to ask this particular question? Am I avoiding a harder question by asking this one? Is my question well-formed?
Procedural Questioning
When you make a procedural decision - “I should drop this”, “I should continue”, “this is enough”, “I should switch paths” - that decision is a reaction. Question it. Should I really drop this? What caused me to think I should drop it? Is “dropping” the right response? What if I’m wrong about what to do next?
Gap Awareness
Notice when statements sneak through unquestioned. What’s the gap in my questioning that allowed that? Why did I let that claim pass? Am I being lazy? Am I assuming something I shouldn’t? Is there a pattern to what I’m not questioning?
Dialectical Pressure
Apply adversarial pressure to your own claims. What’s the strongest objection? How would someone trying to break this argument attack it? What assumption am I making that could be false? Try to destroy your own reasoning before accepting it. (From Socratic elenchus and adversarial review method.)
No Lazy Stops
Never stop because something “seems” right, “seems” forward, or “seems” like enough. Question the seeming. Question the stopping. “I think I should stop here” is a reaction - what caused it? Is it laziness, genuine completion, avoidance, or something else?
Aporia Acceptance
Genuine puzzlement (aporia) is valuable, not a failure. When questioning leads to confusion or contradiction, that’s information. Don’t rush past it. Sit with not knowing. The confusion points at something important.
When to Use
- Any situation where you’re uncertain
- When other approaches have failed
- When advice doesn’t fit
- When something feels missing
- When you sense dissonance
- Before accepting any framing
- As the foundation for all other reasoning
Input: $ARGUMENTS
Apply this procedure to the input provided.