Without me saying anything at all, is there space?

probably not. Because space exists when existence does.

Looking at something, like your hand. You can clearly see a beginning and an end.

So what's space without ground existence? without a beginning and an end.

Space exists constantly in the field of thought. Constant flows of thinking give you the illusion that the space between thoughts is space, when it isn't, because thought made that space. So what's space not touched by thought?

One of the most profound questions: if there is no space, what is there?

It is as if space is the representation of a single water drop from a vast ocean. And having constant drops of water gives you a deceptive impression that those continuous drops represent space.

Can someone live knowing this whole operation of space? What kind of person is that?

It seems this person won't operate in the known, because the known is like those drops of water from the vast ocean (the unknown).

It seems this person who operates with space is a person who is *what is. Who is dynamically between vast oceans and drops of water. It can fluctuate between the two without mixing them.

I have been working as an AI engineer for some time. Training models, and everything. Boring stuff.

People need to understand that these models are just generators. They don't actually think, however, that they have something we call grpo, which helps them refine their next answer.

So basically, if you are running the prompt in the same chat you created it in, the model's main obligation won't be to execute the prompt correctly. It will be to execute it like a king helping his prince become a king. It will be a totally corrupt execution.

Therefore, when you want to run the prompt, open a fresh chat and run it there. Then use the same chat you used to make the prompt and ask for a qa prompt. Then pick the output of the prompt generated in the generator chat, and paste it in the fresh qa chat with the qa prompt, and run it. Then you will get the true feedback.

The important point here is that running the prompt you generated in the same chat opens a flood of contamination, so the model won't feel like it has to complete the task properly. It will just treat the task as if it were in a monarchy.

I'm the author, and this is an outside experiment, not affiliated with Anthropic.

I wanted to know whether I could beat Claude Code's /compact at the one thing it is for: holding an agent's place when the context window is compacted.

Some background on why I cared. A long-running agent loses its place. It loops on work it already did, reports a summary as if it were an artifact, or stalls on a step that needs a human. So I built a deterministic layer, with no extra model calls, that writes a frozen position record at the end of each run and re-reads it at the start of the next. The bet was that an explicit, re-readable record would help the agent recover its next step after compaction better than /compact's summary does.

So I tested it properly. Pre-registered A/B, 96 trials, 48 per arm, across haiku/sonnet/opus, in the post-compaction regime. The question was whether the position anchor beats /compact on correct-next-action rate and held-place rate.

It does not. Correct-next-action delta: 0.000, p=1.000. Held-place: +0.042, p=0.819. /compact held.

The reason is worth stating plainly, because it is a quiet endorsement of /compact. It already writes the committed next step into its summary sections. The agent re-reads that step on re-entry, so a separate anchor is solving a problem /compact has already solved. If you rely on /compact to keep your place after a compaction, the data says it is doing its job.

That left me with a sharper question: what does /compact not cover? Three things, observed across more than 200 real /go runs.

It routes the task to a lane and a concrete next milestone, so the agent is not just re-entered; it is pointed.

It gates expensive work. On a low-relevance task it returns relevance=low, and the downstream retrieval call is skipped instead of run.

It blocks false progress. On the heavier runs, where this check is wired in, a run that produced only a summary, with no artifact, gate, test, or benchmark, got BLOCKED_NO_PROGRESS and exit code 1. Plain Python, so the block is deterministic, not a model deciding it was done.

None of those compete with /compact. They sit next to it: /compact preserves the next step, and the layer decides whether that step is worth taking and whether the run actually moved.

Full writeup, tests, and methodology: comment . If you build long agent runs on Claude Code, I am curious whether you have seen /compact lose the next step, or whether it holds for you the way it held here.

The problem I kept hitting is simple to state. A long-running agent loses its place. It loops on work it already did, reports a summary as if it were an artifact, or stalls on a step that needs a human. What it has lost is its journey position, four coordinates it cannot reconstruct from a compressed context window: its lane, its milestone, its gate, its blocker.

So I built a deterministic layer to track those coordinates, with no extra model calls. It adds five checkpoints around an existing pipeline. Two of them fire on every run: positioning and lane selection. A no-progress guard fires only on the heavier ones. Here is what that does in my own runs, not in a demo.

It has fired in more than 200 real pipeline runs. On each one it positions the task and routes it to a lane. In one case it took a "make this system beat the benchmarks" request and sent it to the recursive-prompt lane with a concrete next milestone, instead of letting the agent wander.

It gates expensive work. On a low-relevance task it returns relevance=low, and the downstream retrieval call is skipped instead of run. That is a real saved call on real traffic.

It blocks false progress. When a run produced only a summary, with no artifact, gate, test, or benchmark, the guard returned BLOCKED_NO_PROGRESS and exit code 1. It is plain Python, so that block is deterministic, not a model deciding it was done.

And the position records persist. Two weeks of runs, more than 200 sessions in total, each leaving a re-readable record of where the agent was.

Taken together, that is the layer doing real work, deterministically, with no model in the loop. Then there is the part I bet on that did not pay off. I am keeping it in.

I expected the frozen position record to help the agent recover the correct next step after the context was compacted. So I pre-registered an A/B: 96 trials, 48 per arm, across haiku/sonnet/opus, in that post-compaction regime. The anchor, the frozen position record, did not beat Claude Code's /compact. Here are the numbers. Correct-next-action delta: 0.000, p=1.000. Held-place: +0.042, p=0.819. The reason is boring and useful: /compact already writes the next step into its summary, so for that one job the anchor was redundant.

The lesson is not that the layer fails. It is that the layer earns its keep where /compact does nothing, on routing, gating, and blocking false progress, and not on next-step recovery, which /compact already handles. That is a sharper claim than I started with, and the null is what sharpened it.

Full writeup, tests, and methodology. Comment to get the research paper. Curious whether others have measured agent position-loss directly, or just felt it.

Doubt him

Again, doubt him

1 - do NOT listen to him when he’s talking alone. You won’t understand anything at all

LISTEN TO K IN DISCUSSION GROUPS FIRST

2 - once you have the grasp and want to go deeper

LISTEN TO K WITH DAVID BOHM OR K ALONE

3 - this is where you get to see what you are.

TAKE A BLANK SHEET OF PAPER AND WRITE DOWN WHAT K IS TALKING BUT USE YOUR LIFE AS THE SUBJECT. EXPLAIN IN YOUR OWN WORDS.

YOU WONT KNOW WHAT TO WRITE BUT YOU WILL WRITE.

I didn’t think at all I was going to write all of that.

Ending it

What does it mean to end?

See right now, I don’t know what I’m going to say.

Or maybe this whatever it is - is happening and inside of me thought is trying to describe.

But I focus my attention to whatever it is and not to thought to describe. Therefore this removes the pressure for thought to create another pressure thought to answer itself, because thought is not the source of the message, thought is just the messenger.

Now, what’s sorrow?

This word has a been around for a long time.

Sorrow means for humans a super long term sadness that it is much more intense than sadness.

So humans just created "super plus words” to describe things that they can’t seem to fathom.

I’m here and I don’t know the next word at all.

Now, What does sorrow have to do with me?

What’s ending?

Ending is not the same as finishing it.

You finish a task.

No way back to that task. It is finished.

You start a task, and you end it.

However, you can start the task again. So ending, leaves the possibility of starting.

So you can’t end something without knowing where did you start it.

Because the two are one single coin with different sides.

So ending sorrow means you need to find the starting point of that sorrow.

Once you see the start clearly without imagination. Naturally it ends.

So imagine you have a long term sadness (sorrow) since you were a boy/girl

Something tragic has happened to you.

And psychologists say that we ought to find where the trauma begun so we can see it play out. Because anything that starts it ends.

But with confabulation of memories, the starting point disappears, or gets obfuscate by memories.

So ending sorrow doesn’t happen with methods, only when you see it clearly it where it begun. Then it flowers, and it will end.

I had no idea, and no plan that I was going to write all of that. What’s this? It is insane. It seems words are just the messenger of this whatever "is".

What does it means?

I listen to a sound

But I listen to also things without sound

Inward thinking with music, past conversations, and words

I listen to them but they have no sound at all

How?

What is the root meaning of sound?

The Best meaning I came up is a sensation between the hears

But what about the inward sound?

This difference made me question this

If both are receive by me. And I’m giving them the same name, but one does not equal the other. Something is wrong with the meaning of it.

I think sound is not just noise. I think sound is a reactive shapeless alert system

It doesn’t have a fixed shape. It can’t. It changes itself from noise into "inward noise"

It travels through the boundaries of what’s possible to hear and what’s possible to hear it through.

This whatever thing has the ability to be active with sound and without it.

So what is it?

It comes when someone is talking to you. Sound inside you. Then it comes when you are thinking.

Now the gold question is

How do I know that I’m listening?

I pay attention to this word "know”

It can only come when you are already know something

So the mechanism to deal with the known is with memory, remembering

Wait a second

So this means that I need to remember to listen?

I don’t think so

Imagine if someone needs to remember to listen? That person would be living in a non present world.

That person would need to be living in full illusions worlds, all made by the brain, all made by memories.

So listening is never possible with the known.

Because to listen with the known you have to use your thinking to make you think that you are listening.

Look at the delay

So then I see this

And I went into what is listening without knowing?

Without knowing is like I’m in a classroom for the very first time. All eager to listen to the lecture without having any prior knowledge or memory of it.

It is like you are listening to something genuinely new to you.

This requires me to drop all my memories, all my knowledge, everything I know.

So you can drop something and still pick it up again later

Now that I listen without knowing, I’m fully present here to listen

So what this means?

Listening without knowing how to listen is the closest thing to true listening

There are no filters, no discernible actions towards the message

The signal just arrives to you clean

This can be done by going into a forest or the outside and you listen to birds, airplanes sounds. There’s no filter. Because the sound is what is.

So what world would this be if people listen without knowing how to listen? If they listen without using their memories to corrupt the message?

Who are you if you listen "without knowing"?

The funny thing here is that listening without knowing is something outside of time. It doesn’t have a start nor an end. It is timeless. Not bound by material processes.

I have spent the last few days trying to understand what this word truly means

The root meaning of the word is to seek after

But what am seeking after?

Do I inquiring into something trying to find the answer?

Before inquiring do I need to know or have a sense of what I’m going to find?

Well that’s not inquiring truly.

That’s programmatic questioning

So I went deep and deeper

I spent all day, searching for an answer, why?

Because there has to be a true meaning of inquiring that it is undeniably true.

So what is it?

Then I realized something.

What if inquiring truly means to question something not hoping to have an answer?

Or to search for something not knowing what you will find

What kind of mental state is that?

Is that mental state even possible?

That’s when I realized it

Inquiring means the search for what’s not there, the questioning without not knowing.

But the questions that hit me was

How can you know what you don’t know?

How can you use what you know to find what you don’t know?

You can find what you know by remembering. Simple.

But how can you find what you don’t know?

Do you use the mental state of knowing to look for what you don’t know?

See the inequality

Any mathematical equation will tell you that 2 does not equal 3

So if you want to dive into what you don’t know, you need to have a "don’t know” mind.

Drop all your knowledge, forget who you are, put it aside. Act like a baby who just came to this world.

Then you will enter into the field of the unknown.

From there you question what you don’t know.

I see so many people in society trying to reach for something

And I look at them and I feel like they are going to path that has an end

And of course I ended up being right

The fulfillment happens but then it is not enough

Like someone who’s trying to reach a level

They get it the level and realize there’s no level

All of this things J Krisnamurti has been talking about it for years

K has realized this since he was almost 20 or 30 years.

And this is bizarre and also scary for K

He was living in a world in which he was the only one who truly understood life and was eager to dive into it without having chains of knowledge preventing further exploration into it

At the same time, this should serve as a warning to all of us who are in this journey

You are going to feel more isolated then ever because there is not a lot of people who are eager to explore life like you are

What’s desire?

Wanting something that it is not there.

So the thought jumps him, and gives you what you want in that moment.

However, the issue is that thought needs to work itself to give you the illusion of having what you want.

Then when it gives you what you want. But it needs to be constantly thinking about it so you "feel" you have it.

However, you are going into loop of thought for the benefit of having constant desire. So you gonna want more and more.

But what’s wrong with that?

Nothing.

It is just dissipation of energy.

Thought needs energy to operate itself. And it is not using that energy to give you want, and by doing that, it is also keeping itself alive. Because thought needs to operate, it has its own "body".

But thought, who’s constantly thinking about desire is harming you without knowing it is harming you.

That’s why it is important for you to see thought for what thought is.

A reactive engine loop that doesn’t have a fixed pattern. It is dynamically choosing its own pattern of thinking.

Linear thinking, circular thinking,etc are patterns that thought uses intelligently to operate depending on the situation, and the materials it has in front of it.

So trying to be beat thought, it is like trying to beat someone who has all the data about you and it knows you, like trying to beat your own hand.